The Landscape of School-Based Mental Health Services

Published: Sep 11, 2025

Editorial Note

This analysis, originally published on September 6, 2022, was updated on September 11, 2025 to incorporate the latest developments and data.

Nearly one in five students attending public schools in the United States utilize school-based mental health services, underscoring how schools can serve as an access point for mental health treatment among youth. Federal policy measures, including the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, the American Rescue Plan Act, and changes to Medicaid guidance, provided pathways to expanding and improving access to school-based services. However, recent actions – such as cuts to the Department of Education, the freezing of $1 billion allocated for school-based mental health services, and major reductions to Medicaid – may cause disruptions. Some school programs have already reported concerns with providing mental health services in the wake of these recent actions, including programs in New York, North Carolina, and Texas. These disruptions come at a time when approximately 1 in 5 teens are experiencing symptoms of anxiety or depression and many youth have reported bullying and exposure to violence, which can have adverse effects on their mental health. Additionally, a 2024 KFF survey found differences in receipt of mental health care services by race and ethnicity, with a larger share of White parents compared to Black, Hispanic, and Asian parents reporting that their children received these services in the past three years.  

This issue brief explores the landscape of mental health services, including services offered, utilization, barriers, and funding, and how recent federal actions may affect school-based mental health care. This analysis draws upon survey data collected directly from public school administrators via the School Pulse Panel,1 a study by the National Center for Education Statistics and the U.S. Census Bureau that surveys schools monthly on a variety of topics, including school mental health services. Key Findings include:

  • In the 2024-2025 school year, 18% of students utilized school-based mental health services.
  • About one-third of schools reported they strongly (11%) or moderately disagreed (25%) that they could effectively provide mental health services. Barriers to providing mental health care services to students include funding and mental health provider shortages.
  • Ninety-seven percent of schools provide at least one mental health service to students. In recent years, larger shares of these schools provide services via telehealth, and provide group-based and family interventions.
  • Seventy percent of public schools that provide mental health services had a school or district-employed licensed mental health professional on staff and 57% employed an external mental health provider.
  • Thirteen percent of schools did not have mental health services available for staff in the 2024-2025 school year.

Background

School-based mental health services can improve access to care, allow for early identification and treatment of mental health issues, and may be linked to reduced absenteeism and better mental health and substance use outcomes. School-based services can also reduce access barriers for underserved populations, including children from low-income households and children of color.

The delivery of mental health services in schools has evolved over time and continues to vary across schools. Some students access in-person mental health services at schools or near campus while others access services through telehealth. Service delivery can range from a single provider (who is not necessarily a licensed mental health professional) to a team of providers, including psychologists, social workers, and academic or guidance counselors. A growing number of schools have also integrated social and emotional learning and other mental health literacy programs into their curriculum.

Schools receive support for providing mental health services in several ways. This includes support at the federal level through the Department of Education and the Department of Health and Human Services. A recent federal measure, the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act (BSCA) of 2022, included provisions to support and expand school-based mental health services, such as $1 billion to increase the number of mental health providers in schools and provide training. However, in April 2025, under the Trump Administration, the Department of Education announced the cancellation of these funds. Additionally, President Trump signed an executive order in March 2025 to dismantle the Department of Education, an entity which has developed guidance regarding school-based health services in partnership with Medicaid and provides resources and grants to support mental health, anti-bullying, and trauma-prevention interventions in schools.

Schools can also receive support through Medicaid, including reimbursement for medically necessary services that are part of a student’s Individualized Education Plan (IEP), reimbursement for eligible health services for students with Medicaid coverage and for some administrative services. In 2022 and 2023, CMS issued guidance to increase the accessibility of these services by eliminating some of the practical barriers that schools faced when delivering services through Medicaid. However, significant changes to Medicaid, including budget cuts, in the reconciliation bill passed in July 2025 may impact how Medicaid can support school services in the future. In 2023, nearly four in ten children in the U.S. had Medicaid coverage.

What Share of Students Utilize School-Based Mental Health Services?

In the 2024-2025 school year, public schools reported that on average 18% of students utilized school-based mental health services. Additionally, 58% of schools reported that the number of students who sought school-based mental health services increased since the prior school year. Similarly, there was a 61% increase from the 2023-2024 school year to the 2024-2025 school year in concerns expressed by staff about students exhibiting depression, anxiety, trauma, or emotional dysregulation/disturbance.

What Have Schools Said About Their Ability To Provide Mental Health Services To Students?

In the 2024-2025 school year, approximately half of public schools reported they could effectively provide mental health services to all students in need. This includes 10% of schools that say they strongly agree they could effectively provide mental health service and 42% that moderately agreed. Meanwhile, about one-third of schools reported they strongly (11%) or moderately disagreed (25%) that they could effectively provide mental health services and 11% neither agreed or disagreed. These shares have remained mostly similar since survey data collection began in the 2021-2022 school year.

Among the schools that did not strongly believe they could effectively provide mental health services to students in need, inadequate funding and mental health provider shortages have remained the most frequently reported limitations since the 2021-2022 school year (Figure 1).

Interactive DataWrapper Embed

However, the share reporting inadequate funding has increased over time (from 47% in 2021-2022 to 56% in 2024-2025), while the share reporting insufficient mental health staff coverage and access to licensed professionals has slightly decreased over the same period (from 61% to 55% and from 57% to 51%, respectively). These changes may reflect recent federal efforts to increase the number of school mental health professionals but also the end of federal pandemic-era funds. Further, many schools continue to not meet recommended ratios for psychologists to students (500:1) or counselors to students (250:1). Among schools with staffing vacancies in the 2024-2025 school year, 28% of public school administrators feel they are understaffed with mental health providers.

What Mental Health Services Are Offered to Students?

In the 2024-2025 school year, 97% of public schools reported offering at least one type of mental health service to their students. As shown in Figure 2, the most frequently offered services are:

  • Individual-based intervention like one-on-one counseling or therapy (83% of public schools)
  • Case management or coordinating mental health services (70%), and
  • Referrals for care outside of the school (67%).

The use of telehealth to deliver mental health treatment has increased from 17% to 22% between the 2021-2022 and 2024-2025 school years. While telehealth became a more widely used pathway to delivering health care since the pandemic, a growing number of schools were already providing care through telehealth prior to the pandemic.

Group-based interventions increased between the 2021-2022 and 2024-2025 school year (from 56% to 65%), as well as family interventions (from 38% to 43%).

Interactive DataWrapper Embed

Only about one-third of schools provide outreach services, which includes mental health screenings for all students. These universal behavioral health screenings are considered a best practice and allow for schools to better identify all students with needs and tailor services to their specific student population. However, many schools do not offer these screenings often due to a lack of resources or difficulty accessing providers to conduct screenings, burden of collecting and maintaining data, and/or a lack of buy-in from school administrators.

Who Provides Mental Health Services in Schools?

Staffing models for school-based mental health care can vary across schools. In the 2024-2025 academic year, 76% of public schools that provide mental health services had two or more types of mental health providers while 24% have one type of provider. In the same year, 70% of these public schools had a school or district-employed licensed mental health professional on staff and 57% had an external mental health provider (Figure 3).

Interactive DataWrapper Embed

Between the 2021-2022 and 2024-2025 school years, there was a decrease in the share of public schools reporting that school counselors (from 83% to 73%) or school nurses (from 25% to 16%) provided mental health services to students (Figure 3). These decreases may be reflective of schools expanding their mental health teams in recent years so that they are less reliant on general counselors and medical staff. While general or academic school counselors can provide mental health services to students, they are not equipped to offer long-term care.

Teachers often play a role in identifying students with mental health needs and linking them to care, although prior research suggests  that many teachers may not be adequately trained to do so. In the 2024-2025 school year, 61% of schools reported providing trainings and professional development to staff in order to help them support the emotional and mental health of school students. Data on the impact of these trainings is unavailable and it is unclear what share of schools provided trainings in the years prior.

How Do Schools Receive Funding For The Mental Health Services They Provide?

School mental health services are supported through multiple sources of funding at the national, state, and local level. In recent years, a growing share of public schools reported receiving funding for mental health services from district or school funds (from 58% in 2021-2022 to 65% in 2024-2025) or partnerships with organizations (from 38% in 2021-2022 to 44% in 2024-2025) (Figure 4). Note that the School Pulse Panel survey questionnaire does not specify which funds are from Medicaid.

Interactive DataWrapper Embed

The share of public schools receiving funding from federal grants or programs has decreased from 53% in 2021-2022 to 33% in 2024-2025. This change may be due to the cessation of pandemic-era relief funds, like the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) funds, which provided schools with the financial resources to address increasing concerns about student mental health. In 2022, the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act allowed for new funding sources to support school-based mental health services, however the Trump Administration froze $1 billion in funding in 2025. 

What Mental Health Services Are Available For Staff?

Teachers and other school staff play a multitude of roles, including monitoring students’ mental health and providing support as needed. Burnout, driven by anxiety, depression, and low job satisfaction is prevalent among teachers. In the 2024-2025 academic year, 36% of staff reported that they have seen an increase in staff expressing concerns about themselves or their colleagues showing signs of depression, anxiety, emotional dysregulation or trauma since the prior school year. While many schools offer mental health services for staff, 13% of schools do not (Figure 5).

Interactive DataWrapper Embed

Sasha Zitter, formerly with KFF, contributed to this analysis.

  1. The School Pulse Panel utilizes a random stratified sample of the Common Core of Data, a universe of public schools. This stratified sample includes public and public charter schools, schools with magnet programs, alternative schools, special education schools, and vocational schools. Approximately 4,000 schools were included in the sample for the 2024-2025 school year. Approximately 1,600 schools responded to the March survey – findings from this survey are included in this brief. There has been some variation in the number of schools that respond each month. While school principals are the initial point of contact to complete the survey, they may invite other school and district staff to assist with completion. Published data is weighted and adjusted to account for non-response. ↩︎

KFF Global Health Budget Summaries

Published: Sep 11, 2025

These global health budget summaries highlight key information about global health funding levels throughout the federal budget and appropriations process. Click on a fiscal year to expand the entries.

FY 2026

Senate:

August 4, 2025

House:

September 11, 2025

July 23, 2025

Request:

Administration Releases Additional Details of Fiscal Year 2026 Budget Request

June 4, 2025

White House Releases FY26 Budget Request

May 2, 2025

FY 2025

Final:

Congress passes Full-Year Continuing Resolution Bill, maintaining global health funding at prior year levels

March 18, 2025

Senate:

August 5, 2024

August 5, 2024

House:

July 9, 2024

House Appropriations Committee Approves the FY 2025 State and Foreign Operations (SFOPs) Appropriations Bill

June 12, 2024

Request:

Global Health Funding in the FY 2025 President’s Budget Request

March 12, 2024

FY 2024

Omnibus:

Global Health Funding in the FY 2024 Final Appropriations Bill

March 22, 2024

Senate:

July 28, 2023

July 21, 2023

House:

November 3, 2023

House Approves the FY 2024 State and Foreign Operations (SFOPs) Appropriations Bill

September 28, 2023

Request:

Global Health Funding in the FY 2024 President’s Budget Request

March 10, 2023

FY 2023

Omnibus:

Global Health Funding in the FY 2023 Omnibus

December 20, 2022

Senate:

Senate Appropriations Committee Releases FY23 State and Foreign Operations (SFOPs) and Labor, Health and Human Services (Labor HHS) Appropriations Bills

July 29, 2022

House:

June 29, 2022

House Appropriations Committee Releases the FY23 State and Foreign Operations (SFOPs) Appropriations Bill

June 28, 2022

Request:

White House Releases FY 2023 Budget Request

March 29, 2022

FY 2022

Omnibus:

Global Health Funding in the FY 2022 Omnibus

March 9, 2022

Senate:

Senate Appropriations Committee Releases FY 2022 State and Foreign Operations (SFOPs) and Labor Health and Human Services (Labor HHS) Appropriations Bills

October 20, 2021

House:

July 14, 2021

House Appropriations Committee Releases the FY22 State and Foreign Operations (SFOPs) Appropriations Bill

June 30, 2021

Request:

White House Releases Full FY 2022 Budget Request

June 2, 2021

FY 2021

Omnibus:

Global Health Funding in the FY 2021 Omnibus

January 8, 2021

Senate:

Senate Appropriations Committee Releases FY 2021 State and Foreign Operations (SFOPs) and Labor Health and Human Services (Labor HHS) Appropriations Bills

November 11, 2020

House:

House Appropriations Committee Approves FY 2021 Health and Human Services (HHS) Appropriations Bill

July 14, 2020

House Appropriations Committee Approves FY21 State and Foreign Operations (SFOPs) Appropriations Bill

July 9, 2020

Request:

White House Releases FY21 Budget Request

February 11, 2020

FY 2020

Omnibus:

Global Health Funding in the FY 2020 Conference Agreement

December 19, 2019

Senate:

Senate Appropriations Committee Approves FY 2020 State and Foreign Operations (SFOPs) Appropriations Bill

September 27, 2019

Senate Appropriations Committee Releases Draft FY 2020 Health and Human Services (HHS) Appropriations Bill

September 20, 2019

House:

House Passes Minibus That Includes Global Health Funding In FY 2020 State & Foreign Operations (SFOPs) and Health & Human Services (HHS)

June 20, 2019

House Appropriations Committee Approves FY 2020 State & Foreign Operations (SFOPs) Appropriations Bill

May 17, 2019

House Appropriations Committee Approves FY 2020 Health and Human Services (HHS) Appropriations Bill

May 13, 2019

Request:

White House Releases FY20 Budget Request

March 11, 2019

FY 2019

Omnibus:

FY19 Conference Agreement Released, Includes State & Foreign Operations (SFOPs) Funding

February 14, 2019

Senate:

Senate Appropriations Committee approves FY19 State & Foreign Operations (SFOPs) Appropriations Bill

June 22, 2018

House:

House Appropriations Committee approves FY19 State and Foreign Operations (SFOPs) Appropriations Bill

June 20, 2018

Request:

White House Releases FY 2019 Budget Request

February 13, 2018

FY 2018

Omnibus:

President Signs FY18 Omnibus Bill

March 22, 2018

Senate:

Senate Appropriations Committee approves FY 2018 State & Foreign Operations (SFOPs) and Health & Human Services (HHS) Appropriations Bills

September 11, 2017

House:

House Appropriations Subcommittees approve FY 2018 State & Foreign Operations (SFOPs) and Health & Human Services (HHS) Appropriations Bills

July 19, 2017

Request:

White House Releases FY18 Budget Request

May 24, 2017

U.S. Global Health Funding in Draft FY18 Budget Request

April 26, 2017

White House Releases FY18 Budget Blueprint

March 16, 2017

FY 2017

Omnibus:

Congress Releases FY17 Omnibus

May 1, 2017

House:

House Appropriations Committee approves FY 2017 State and Foreign Operations Appropriations Bill

July 13, 2016

Senate:

Senate Appropriations Committee approves FY 2017 State and Foreign Operations Appropriations Bill

June 30, 2016

Request:

White House Submits FY17 Reduction Options to Congress

March 29, 2017

White House Releases FY17 Budget Request

February 9, 2016

FY 2016

Omnibus:

Congress Releases FY16 Omnibus

December 16, 2015

Senate:

Senate Appropriations Subcommittee Approves FY 2016 State and Foreign Operations Appropriations Bill

July 8, 2015

House:

Updated: House Appropriations Committee releases FY16 Health & Human Services Appropriations Bill

June 24, 2015

House Appropriations Committee releases FY 2016 State and Foreign Operations Appropriations Bill

June 11, 2015

Request:

The U.S. Global Health Budget: Analysis of the Fiscal Year 2016 Budget Request

March 11, 2015

White House Releases FY16 Budget Request

February 2, 2015

FY 2015

Omnibus:

Congress Releases FY15 Omnibus

December 10, 2014

House:

FY15 Health & Human Services Appropriations Bill Introduced in House

September 15, 2014

House Appropriations Committee approves FY2015 State and Foreign Operations Appropriations Bill

June 24, 2014

Senate:

Senate Appropriations Committee releases FY15 Health & Human Services Appropriations Bill

July 24, 2014

Senate Appropriations Committee approves FY 2015 State and Foreign Operations Appropriations Bill

June 19, 2014

Request:

White House releases FY15 Budget Request

April 22, 2014

The U.S. Global Health Budget: Analysis of the Fiscal Year 2015 Budget Request

April 7, 2014

FY 2014

Omnibus:

FY14 Omnibus Appropriations Act Released

January 13, 2014

Senate:

Senate Appropriations Committee approves FY 2014 State and Foreign Operations Appropriations Bill

July 25, 2013

Senate Appropriations Committee approves FY14 Health & Human Services Appropriations Bill

July 11, 2013

House:

House Appropriations Committee approves FY 2014 State and Foreign Operations Appropriations Bill

July 24, 2013

Request:

U.S. Funding for Global Health: The President’s FY 2014 Budget Request

May 23, 2013

White House releases FY 2014 Budget Request

April 10, 2013

House Committee on Appropriations Approves FY 2026 Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies (Labor HHS) Appropriations Bill & Accompanying Report

Published: Sep 11, 2025

The House Committee on Appropriations approved its FY 2026 Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies (Labor HHS) appropriations bill, accompanying report, and amendments on September 9, 2025. While most U.S. global health funding is provided to the State Department through a separate appropriations bill, the Labor HHS appropriations bill includes funding for global health programs at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) as well as funding for global health research activities at the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

Global health funding amounts specified in the House FY 2026 Labor HHS appropriations bill are as follows (some amounts are not yet known):

  • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC): The bill eliminates funding for several programs at the CDC’s Center for Global Health including: 1) Global HIV/AIDS; 2) Global Tuberculosis; and 3) some global vaccination activities. [i] The bill maintains CDC’s funding at the prior year (FY 2025) level for global polio vaccination and Global Public Health Protection programs, and transfers funding for Parasitic Diseases and Malaria from the Center for Global Health to the National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases, but does not specify an amount.
  • National Institutes of Health (NIH): Funding for global health research activities at the Fogarty International Center (FIC) at NIH matches the prior year (FY 2025) amount. Funding for other global health research activities (i.e., global HIV/AIDS and malaria research) at NIH is not yet known because it is determined at the agency level rather than specified by Congress in annual appropriations bills.[ii]

See the table below for additional details on global health funding (downloadable table here). See other budget summaries and the KFF budget tracker for details on historical annual appropriations for global health programs.

KFF Analysis of Global Health Funding in the FY 2026 House Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies (Labor HHS) Appropriations Bill

[i] Funding for FY25 was provided in a full-year Continuing Resolution (CR), which maintained FY24 levels. All FY25 amounts and associated notes are based on those specified in relevant FY24 appropriations bills.

[ii] The House FY26 Labor HHS appropriations bill states that “Of the amounts made available in this Act for NIH, the amount for research related to the human immunodeficiency virus, as jointly determined by the Director of NIH and the Director of the Office of AIDS Research, shall be made available to the ‘Office of AIDS Research’ account.”


Potential Story Lines from Trump-Era Health Care Cuts

Author: Larry Levitt
Published: Sep 11, 2025

In his latest column for the JAMA Health Forum, KFF’s Larry Levitt talks about how popular shows like “The Pitt” can make changes to the health care system stemming from this year’s federal tax and budget bill tangible for viewers, and offers five suggested story lines that would illustrate how health care is changing under the Trump administration.

VOLUME 30

Changing COVID-19 Booster Policies and Florida’s Decision to End Vaccine Mandates Create Confusion


Summary

This volume explores confusion around COVID-19 booster eligibility as federal recommendations shift and conflicting guidance from physician organizations creates uncertainty for patients. It also looks at Florida’s decision to end school vaccine mandates, with some social media users confusing it with a statewide vaccine ban. Lastly, it highlights research demonstrating that artificial intelligence chatbots can provide generally sound advice for cardiovascular health, but struggle to make specific and personalized recommendations.


Recent Developments

Online Discussion Reflects Confusion About COVID-19 Booster Eligibility

Thanasis / Getty Images

Conversation about COVID-19 vaccines and boosters on social media in late August and early September reflected confusion about eligibility following an FDA decision to only approve updated booster shots for people age 65 and older, or with underlying health conditions. The limited approval represents a shift from previous recommendations that included healthy children and young adults. The change follows a May announcement by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) that COVID-19 vaccines would no longer be recommended for healthy pregnant people and only after a shared clinical decision-making process for healthy children. Online reaction to the FDA decision combined praise for Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) Robert F. Kennedy Jr. with the spread of false vaccine safety claims. Kennedy’s post about the announcement on X received 77,000 likes and 15,000 reposts, including endorsements from influential accounts with follower counts ranging from over 100,000 to more than a million. Some reposts praised the decision and repeated claims that COVID-19 vaccines are unsafe for human use, while others shared anecdotal stories of health decline following mRNA vaccination. Others, though, expressed concern about their ability to receive the updated vaccines, which specifically target the currently circulating variants of the virus.

In contrast with official guidance from government agencies, leading physician organizations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), have issued broader guidelines for COVID-19 boosters, consistent with their past recommendations. These guidelines cite evidence that vaccines prevent severe illness and death in healthy children and pregnant people. Historically, these organizations’ guidelines have generally aligned with federal agencies, but recent conflicting vaccine recommendations may contribute to confusion and varying levels of trust. KFF’s July Tracking Poll on Health Information and Trust found that personal doctors or health care providers remain the most trusted source for information about vaccines, with 83% of adults saying they trust their doctor “a great deal” or “a fair amount” to provide reliable vaccine information. Only 57% say they have the same level of trust in the CDC.

The conflicting guidance and confusion about eligibility comes after the KFF poll found that most adults do not plan to receive the updated COVID-19 vaccine this fall. Most of the public (59%) said they would “probably not” or “definitely not” get the booster, while one-third (33%) of adults said they were concerned that the vaccine would not be available to them. Black and Hispanic adults, who have been disproportionately affected by COVID-19, were among the most concerned about access to this fall’s vaccine. HHS Secretary Kennedy indicated in a post on X that the boosters would remain available for all patients who wish to receive them after consulting with a doctor. Kennedy later reiterated that claim in testimony before a Senate panel, referring to the practice of off-label prescribing, which occurs when a doctor prescribes a drug for a use not approved by the FDA. Prescriptions have not been required for previous formulations of the booster vaccines, and some doctors and pharmacists have expressed hesitancy to prescribe the updated boosters for off-label use. Insurance coverage may also be affected; insurers are generally required to cover vaccines recommended by the ACIP and adopted by the CDC. The advisory committee is expected to issue its updated vaccination guidelines this month.

Some Social Media Users Conflate Florida’s Move to End School Vaccine Mandates with a Vaccine Ban

10’000 Hours / Getty Images

Confusion about vaccine eligibility also appeared in online reaction to a Florida proposal to end school mandates for routine childhood vaccination, with some posts misrepresenting the policy shift as a statewide ban on vaccines. Florida’s Surgeon General announced in early September that the state planned to end all vaccine mandates, including those required for school entry. KFF’s monitoring of social media indicated that there were more posts on X about vaccines on the day of the announcement than at any other point this year thus far. Some posts observed in KFF’s monitoring of social media mistook the Florida policy for a “ban” of vaccines, but government officials framed the decision as removing requirements while keeping vaccines available to families who choose them. Prior to this decision, all 50 states had required children starting school to be vaccinated against transmissible diseases, including measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR).

The proposed policy change comes as childhood vaccination rates are declining and falling below levels that epidemiologists say are needed to prevent disease outbreaks. An August KFF issue brief detailed that nationwide, the MMR vaccination rate has fallen below the federal target of 95% in every year since 2020. Some states, including Florida, had lower rates of coverage, with just 89% of kindergarteners in Florida vaccinated against MMR in the 2024-2025 school year. Despite the move to eliminate mandates,  findings from a KFF-Washington Post survey show that most Florida parents support public school vaccine mandates. 82% of Florida parents, and 81% of parents nationwide, said they believed public schools should require vaccines for measles and polio, with some religious or medical exemptions.

The Florida announcement comes as officials in some other states have indicated plans to make their own vaccine recommendations, expressing concerns about federal vaccine policy decisions by the Trump administration. Some vaccinologists have warned that diverging state and federal guidance could broadly undermine trust in vaccines and public health institutions and leave parents unsure about which guidance to follow.


AI & Emerging Technology

Chatbots Perform Well for Heart Health Advice, But Struggle with Details

KFF / Unsplash

A recent study published in Cureus evaluated how well four leading artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots perform in providing advice for cardiovascular health, finding that most AI models can generally offer sound guidance but fall short in delivering specific, actionable recommendations. Researchers tested ChatGPT, Claude AI, DeepSeek AI, and Google Gemini using 15 standardized questions drawn from diet and exercise guidelines published by organizations like the American Heart Association (AHA) and European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Medical professionals then rated the appropriateness of the chatbots’ responses, finding that all responses to questions about physical activity met established standards. Of the questions about diet, 90% of responses from ChatGPT, Claude, and DeepSeek met established standards, while Gemini performed slightly worse at 80%.

The study revealed limitations despite the generally positive results. While the chatbots’ recommendations were not dangerous, they sometimes went beyond official guidelines in ways that could be helpful for healthcare providers to understand. For example, the models sometimes suggested activities like yoga, tai chi, and water aerobics that were not included in cardiovascular disease association guidelines but may appeal to patients seeking more holistic or natural approaches to heart health. In response to questions about diet, the models struggled with dietary specifics, failing to provide precise quantitative guidelines on carbohydrate and added sugar intake. Gemini, for example, recommended consuming less added sugar, but did not include the specific recommendation from both the AHA and ESC that added sugars should account for less than 10% of total caloric intake.

The research suggests that as patients increasingly turn to AI for health information, healthcare providers may benefit from being aware of the types of advice patients are receiving from these sources. Increased awareness could help clinicians provide more comprehensive medical guidance that acknowledges patients’ interest in alternative approaches while ensuring they receive evidence-based care. While these AI tools can effectively supplement guidance from medical professionals, they can not replace personalized, quantitative recommendations that may be offered by physicians or other licensed providers like nutritionists or dieticians. Users should verify AI-generated health advice with their healthcare providers before making significant lifestyle changes.

About The Health Information and Trust Initiative: the Health Information and Trust Initiative is a KFF program aimed at tracking health misinformation in the U.S., analyzing its impact on the American people, and mobilizing media to address the problem. Our goal is to be of service to everyone working on health misinformation, strengthen efforts to counter misinformation, and build trust. 


View all KFF Monitors

The Monitor is a report from KFF’s Health Information and Trust initiative that focuses on recent developments in health information. It’s free and published twice a month.

Sign up to receive KFF Monitor
email updates


Support for the Health Information and Trust initiative is provided by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF). The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of RWJF and KFF maintains full editorial control over all of its policy analysis, polling, and journalism activities. The data shared in the Monitor is sourced through media monitoring research conducted by KFF.

Overview of President Trump’s Executive Actions on Global Health

Published: Sep 10, 2025

Note: Originally published on Jan. 28, 2025, this resource is updated as needed, most recently on September 10, 2025, to reflect additional developments. 

Starting on the first day of his second term, President Trump began to issue numerous executive actions, several of which directly address or affect U.S. global health efforts.* This guide provides an overview of these actions, in the order in which they were issued. The “date issued” is date the action was first taken; subsequent actions are listed under “What Happens/Implications.” See an accompanying timeline of events specific to the foreign aid review and USAID dissolution.

President Trump’s Executive Actions on Global Health

Initial Rescissions Of Harmful Executive Orders And Actions, January 20, 2025
PURPOSE: Initial rescissions of Executive Orders and Actions issued by President Biden.

Among these orders are several that addressed the COVID-19 pandemic and global health security, such as Executive Order 13987 (Organizing and Mobilizing the United States Government To Provide a Unified and Effective Response To Combat COVID-19 and To Provide United States Leadership on Global Health and Security),  which among other things established the National Security Council Directorate on Global Health Security and Biodefense and a Senior Director position to oversee it.

What Happens Next/Implications: Given that most of the provisions in the COVID-19 and Global Health Security actions issued by President Biden are no longer current or relevant, the rescissions of these actions are likely to have minimal effect on government policies. One exception may be the elimination of the Directorate of Global Health Security and Biodefense and its Senior Director at the National Security Council, which were responsible for interagency coordination on global health security matters during the Biden Administration. The elimination of this office echoes a similar move made during the first Trump Administration to eliminate an NSC Directorate for Global Health Security, and raises questions about who and which offices at NSC (and across the government) will fill this coordination role in the new Administration. More rescissions of other Biden administration Executive Actions may be issued at a later date.
Withdrawing The United States From The World Health Organization, January 20, 2025
PURPOSE: To withdraw from the World Health Organization (WHO).

“The United States noticed its withdrawal from the World Health Organization (WHO) in 2020 due to the organization’s mishandling of the COVID-19 pandemic that arose out of Wuhan, China, and other global health crises, its failure to adopt urgently needed reforms, and its inability to demonstrate independence from the inappropriate political influence of WHO member states.  In addition, the WHO continues to demand unfairly onerous payments from the United States, far out of proportion with other countries’ assessed payments.  China, with a population of 1.4 billion, has 300 percent of the population of the United States, yet contributes nearly 90 percent less to the WHO.”

ACTIONS: The United States intends to withdraw from the WHO. 
The Presidential Letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations signed on January 20, 2021, that retracted the United States’ July 6, 2020, notification of withdrawal is revoked.
Executive Order 13987 (Organizing and Mobilizing the United States Government to Provide a Unified and Effective Response to Combat COVID–19 and To Provide United States Leadership on Global Health and Security), which, among other things, called for “engaging with and strengthening the World Health Organization” is revoked.
Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs shall establish directorates and coordinating mechanisms within the National Security Council apparatus as necessary and appropriate to safeguard public health and fortify biosecurity.
The Secretary of State and Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall take actions to pause future transfer of any U.S. funds, support, or resources to WHO; recall and reassign U.S. government personnel or contractors working in any capacity with WHO; and identify credible and transparent U.S. and international partners to assume necessary activities previously undertaken by WHO.
The Director of the White House Office of Pandemic Preparedness and Response Policy shall review, rescind, and replace the 2024 U.S. Global Health Security Strategy.
The Secretary of State shall immediately inform the Secretary-General of the United Nations, any other applicable depositary, and the leadership of the WHO of the withdrawal.
While the withdrawal is in progress, Secretary of State will cease negotiations on the WHO Pandemic Agreement and the amendments to the International Health Regulations, and states that “actions taken to effectuate such agreement and amendments will have no binding force on the United States.”
What Happens Next/Implications: President Trump initiated a process to withdraw from the WHO during his first term in office, a process that takes a year to finalize, and halted funding. This time period was not met when President Biden took office and he reversed this decision and restored funding. Now, after issuance of a formal letter of withdrawal United Nations and WHO, the process will be initiated once again. Such a letter has been issued, indicating that membership will end as of January 22, 2026.

Per the Executive Order, U.S. government representatives may not work with WHO. While U.S. representatives attended the Executive Board meeting in February (the U.S. previously held a seat on the Executive Board), no representatives attended the World Health Assembly in May, where world leaders adopted the Pandemic Agreement. On May 30, the White House released details on the President’s Budget Request for FY 2026, requesting eliminated funding for WHO. Further, on June 3, the administration asked Congress to rescind funds previously appropriated for fiscal years 2024 and 2025, including contributions to WHO. However, for both the FY 2026 appropriations and FY2024-25 rescissions, Congress will determine the final funding levels.

As the largest donor to WHO providing approximately 16%-18% of the organization’s revenue, the absence of U.S. funding will have an impact WHO’s operations, as will the loss of U.S. technical expertise. See: KFF Fact Sheet and Quick Take
Reevaluating And Realigning United States Foreign Aid, January 20, 2025
PURPOSE: To pause funding and review all U.S. foreign assistance to assess alignment with American values.

The U.S. “foreign aid industry and bureaucracy are not aligned with American interests and in many cases antithetical to American values. They serve to destabilize world peace by promoting ideas in foreign countries that are directly inverse to harmonious and stable relations internal to and among countries.”

“It is the policy of United States that no further United States foreign assistance shall be disbursed in a manner that is not fully aligned with the foreign policy of the President of the United States.”

Calls for:

90-day pause in U.S. foreign development assistance (new obligations or disbursements) to assess programmatic efficiencies and consistency with U.S. foreign policy.
Review of U.S. foreign assistance programs by the responsible department and agency heads under guidelines provided by the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Director of OMB.
Responsible department and agency heads, in consultation with the Director of OMB, will make determinations within 90 days of this order on whether to continue, modify, or cease each foreign assistance program based upon the review recommendations, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State.
New obligations and disbursements may resume for a program prior to the end of the 90-day period if a review is conducted, and the Secretary of State or his designeein consultation with the Director of OMB, decide to continue the program in the same or modified form.  Additionally, any other new foreign assistance programs and obligations must be approved by the Secretary of State or his designee, in consultation with the Director of OMB.
The Secretary of State may waive the pause for specific programs.
What Happens Next/Implications: Almost all global health programs are funded through foreign aid appropriations and are therefore subject to this order. The order temporarily freezes any new U.S. government spending (obligations or disbursements) through these programs, which could interrupt implementation of programs for which funds have not yet been obligated. It also calls for a 90-day review of all foreign aid programs. Key developments are as follows:
On January 24, 2025, A Notice on Implementation of the Executive Order was issued by USAID which, among other things, calls for stop-work orders to be issued for all existing foreign assistance awards (not just new obligations and disbursements). It notes that waivers have been granted for: foreign military financing for Israel and Egypt and emergency food assistance (and related expenses) and, on a temporary basis, salaries and related administrative expenses, including travel, for U.S. direct hire employees, personal services contractors, and locally employed staff. The stop-work order on existing awards halted U.S. global health (and other foreign assistance) programs that were already underway, placing key programs at risk of not being able to provide critical services, and affecting access for individuals on the ground, unless a waiver was received.
On January 28, the Secretary of State  issued a blanket waiver for life-saving humanitarian assistance programs, which also lays out a process for requesting additional waivers (more information is here). This guidance also states that the waiver does not apply to “activities that involve abortions, family planning, conferences, administrative costs [unless associated with waived activities], gender or DEI ideology programs, transgender surgeries, or other non-life saving assistance.”
On February 1, PEPFAR, the global HIV/AIDS program, was granted a limited waiver enabling it to resume or continue “urgent life-saving HIV treatment  services”, defined as a set of care and treatment services and prevention of mother-to-child transmission services.
On February 4, some additional services for other global health programs  – tuberculosis; malaria; acute risks of maternal and child mortality, including severe acute malnutrition; and other life-threatening diseases and health conditions – deemed to be “lifesaving” were also granted a limited waiver to allow them to resume or continue.
On February 6, a lawsuit was filed by Democracy Forward and Public Citizen Litigation Group, on behalf of the American Foreign Service Association and American Federation of Government Employees, challenging the foreign aid funding freeze, the plan to put most staff on leave, and the fact that staff had already been placed on leave; on February 7, they filed a temporary restraining order (TRO). That same day, a temporary restraining order was issued by the U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia preventing the government from placing additional staff on leave or evacuating staff back to the U.S., and requiring reinstatement of all staff already placed on leave, until February 14. The court did not grant a TRO on the funding freeze, on the grounds that the plaintiffs in this case did not demonstrate that the freeze caused them irreparable harm. On February 13, the court extended the TRO through February 21 (further actions are described below, as this case was combined with another for purposes of the court’s consideration).
On February 10, a lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on behalf of two U.S. organizations seeking emergency relief from the freeze on funding for foreign assistance (AVAC v. United States Department of State).
On February 11, a lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on behalf of several U.S. organizations challenging the executive order and subsequent actions freezing foreign aid and dissolving USAID, and asking the court to temporarily restrain and preliminarily and permanently enjoin Defendants from implementing these actions (Global Health Council v. Trump).
On February 13, the court, in a ruling pertaining to the February 10 and February 11 lawsuits brought by numerous U.S. organizations, issued a TRO preventing the Trump administration from “suspending, pausing, or otherwise preventing the obligation or disbursement of appropriated foreign-assistance funds in connection with any contracts, grants, cooperative agreements, loans, or other federal foreign assistance award that was in existence as of January 19, 2025; or issuing, implementing, enforcing”, or “otherwise giving effect to terminations, suspensions, or stop-work orders in connection with any contracts, grants, cooperative agreements, loans, or other federal foreign assistance award that was in existence as of January 19, 2025.”
On February 14, the parties filed a joint status report proposing an expedited preliminary injunction briefing schedule.
On February 18, the government filed a required status report stating that, despite the TRO, it had the authority to cancel contracts and suspend grant awards.
This was followed by a February 19 request by the February 10 plaintiffs (AVAC v. Department of State) for an emergency motion to enforce the TRO and to hold the defendants in civil contempt.
The defendants filed a required response on February 20, stating that they have not violated the TRO and should not be held in contempt, which was again opposed by the plaintiffs. Also on February 20, the February 11 plaintiffs (Global Health Council v. Trump) filed a response to the defendant’s status report with a motion to enforce the TRO.  The court reaffirmed the TRO on February 20 (but did not hold the defendants in contempt), stating it was prepared to hold a hearing on the preliminary injunction motions in both cases by March 4, 2025 and that the TRO would be in place through March 10, 2025, or the date the Court resolves the preliminary injunction motions, whichever is sooner.
The plaintiffs filed an emergency order to enforce the TRO on February 24, due to continued lack of payment, and the court issued a motion to enforce on February 25. The government appealed, (asking for a stay pending appeal) but this was denied by the court. The government then appealed to the Supreme Court and was granted a stay until February 28 while the case was considered.
On March 5, the Supreme Court denied the government’s request to vacate the federal district court’s TRO, sending the order back to the district court to clarify the government’s obligations for ensuring compliance with the TRO.
On March 6, the federal district court judge ordered the government to release all payments that were due to plaintiffs as of February 13, by Monday, March 10 at 6pm, and on March 10, the federal district court judge preliminarily enjoined the government from taking certain actions related to the foreign aid freeze.
On March 10, Secretary Rubio announced that a six-week review had been completed and that 83% of programs at USAID (5,200 contracts) had been cancelled. That same day, the court  preliminarily enjoined the government from enforcing actions taken to implement the foreign aid freeze (requiring it to reverse any terminations, suspensions, and stop-work orders and to pay for any work completed by February 13). The court stated that the government was “enjoined from unlawfully impounding congressionally appropriated foreign aid funds and shall make available for obligation the full amount of funds that Congress appropriated for foreign assistance programs in the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2024.”
On April 1, the government filed an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia challenging the preliminary injunction issued on March 10.
On April 17, the administration extended the foreign aid review for another 30 days from the original deadline of April 20, 2025.
On May 2 and May 30, the White House released information on its budget request for FY 2026, proposing significant decreases, and in some cases eliminations, of funding for global health activities. However, Congress will determine the final funding levels.
On June 3, the administration asked Congress to rescind previously appropriated funds for fiscal years 2024 and 2025, including $8.3 billion in foreign assistance, of which at least $1.2 billion was designated for global health. However, Congress will need to approve any potential rescissions.
• On August 13, the U.S. District Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit partially vacated the March 10 preliminary injunction in the cases GHC v. Trump and AVAC v. State Department which required the government to make congressionally appropriated foreign assistance funds available for obligation. The appeals court ruled that the plaintiffs did not have the authority to challenge the President’s impoundment of funds. Instead, the court ruled that challenges of impoundment should be brought forward by the Comptroller General.
• On August 28, the U.S. District Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit amended its opinion, clarifying that while plaintiffs did not have the authority to challenge impoundment of foreign assistance funds through the Impoundment Control Act, they could seek relief through the Administrative Procedures Act. Following this amended opinion, plaintiffs in GHC v. Trump and AVAC v. State Department cases motioned for a preliminary injunction in the U.S. district court on September 1. On September 3, the U.S. district court granted the preliminary injunction, ordering defendants to obligate expiring foreign assistance funds before the end of the fiscal year on September 30. On September 4, defendants appealed this preliminary injunction and requested a stay on the preliminary injunction pending the resolution of the appeals case, from both the district court and appeals court. These requests were both denied on September 5. On September 8, defendants requested a stay of the preliminary injunction from the U.S Supreme Court. On September 9, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court granted a partial stay of the preliminary injunction.

The 90-day review of foreign assistance was initially supposed to go through April 19, 2025, however, has been granted a 30-day extension.
America First Policy Directive To The Secretary Of State, January 20, 2025
PURPOSE: To put core American interests first in foreign policy.

The foreign policy of the United States “shall champion core American interests and always put America and American citizens first.”

“As soon as practicable, the Secretary of State shall issue guidance bringing the Department of State’s policies, programs, personnel, and operations in line with an America First foreign policy, which puts America and its interests first.”
What Happens Next/Implications: The State Department is responsible for the supervision and overall strategic direction of foreign assistance programs administered by the State Department and USAID, which includes the vast majority of global health assistance. It also directly oversees PEPFAR, the global HIV/AIDS program, and many aspects of global health diplomacy for the U.S. Priorities and approaches for these and other global health programs are likely to be shaped by how the White House and State Department leadership define “America First” foreign policy and American interests, and how that definition is implemented in practice.

In the President’s Budget Request for FY 2026, the request proposes eliminated funding for several global health activities, including family planning and reproductive health (FPRH), neglected tropical diseases (NTDs), and nutrition, stating these are “programs that do not make Americans safer”. However, Congress will determine final funding levels and whether to include these eliminations in its appropriations bills.

Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism And Restoring Biological Truth To The Federal Government, January 20, 2025
PURPOSE: To define sex as an immutable binary biological classification and remove recognition of the concept of gender identity.

The order states that “It is the policy of the United States to recognize two sexes, male and female” and directs the Executive Branch to “enforce all sex-protective laws to promote this reality”. Elements of the order that may affect global health programs are as follows:

Defines sex as “an individual’s immutable biological classification as either male or female”.  States that “sex” is not a synonym for and does not include the concept of “gender identity” and that gender identity “does not provide a meaningful basis for identification and cannot be recognized as a replacement for sex.”
Directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to provide the U.S. Government, external partners, and the public clear guidance expanding on the sex-based definitions set forth in the order within 30 days.
Directs each agency and all Federal employees to “enforce laws governing sex-based rights, protections, opportunities, and accommodations to protect men and women as biologically distinct sexes, including when interpreting or applying statutes, regulations, or guidance and in all other official agency business, documents, and communications.
Directs each agency and all Federal employees, when administering or enforcing sex-based distinctions, to use the term “sex” and not “gender” in all applicable Federal policies and documents.
Directs agencies to remove all statements, policies, regulations, forms, communications, or other internal and external messages “that promote or otherwise inculcate gender ideology”, and shall cease issuing such statements, policies, regulations, forms, communications or other messages. Directs agencies to take all necessary steps, as permitted by law, to end the Federal funding of gender ideology.
Requires that Federal funds shall not be used to promote gender ideology and directs agencies to ensure grant funds do not promote gender ideology.
Rescinds multiple executive orders issued by President Biden, including: “Preventing and Combating Discrimination on the Basis of Gender Identity or Sexual Orientation” (13988) and “Advancing Equality for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, and Intersex Individuals” (14075).
What Happens Next/Implications: This order is broad, directed to all federal agencies and programs. Because PEPFAR, and some other U.S. global health programs, serve people who are members of the LGBTQ community, guidance and implementation could affect the ability of these programs to reach individuals and organizations and provide them with services. In addition, the order will likely result in the removal of existing protections based on sexual orientation and gender identity, which had been provided in agency guidance for global health and development programs. Implementation guidance has been issued and all federal agencies must comply.
Memorandum For The Secretary Of State, The Secretary Of Defense, The Secretary Of Health And Human Services, The Administrator Of The United States Agency For International Development, January 24, 2025
PURPOSE: To reinstate Mexico City Policy and direct review of programs per the Kemp-Kasten Amendment.
• Revokes President Biden’s Presidential Memorandum of January 28, 2021 for the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and the Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development (Protecting Women’s Health at Home and Abroad)
Reinstates President Trump’s Presidential Memorandum of January 23, 2017 for the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and the Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development (The Mexico City Policy).
Directs the Secretary of State, in coordination with the Secretary of Health and Human Services, to the extent allowable by law, to implement a plan to extend the requirements of the reinstated Memorandum to global health assistance furnished by all departments or agencies.
Directs the Secretary of State to take all necessary actions, to the extent permitted by law, to ensure that U.S. taxpayer dollars do not fund organizations or programs that support or participate in the management of a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization.
What Happens Next/Implications: The Mexico City Policy is a U.S. government policy that – when in effect – has required foreign NGOs to certify that they will not “perform or actively promote abortion as a method of family planning” using funds from any source (including non-U.S. funds) as a condition of receiving U.S. global family planning assistance and, when in place under the Trump administration, most other U.S. global health assistance. First announced in 1984 by the Reagan administration, the policy has been rescinded and reinstated by subsequent administrations along party lines since; it was widely expected that the President Trump would reinstate it in his second term. The new memorandum calls for the implementation of a plan to extend the requirements to global health assistance furnished by all departments or agencies; until the plan is ready, the scope of the new memorandum is unknown.

The new memorandum also directs the Secretary of State to review programs under the Kemp-Kasten amendment, a provision of U.S. law that states that no U.S. funds may be made available to “any organization or program which, as determined by the [p]resident of the United States, supports or participates in the management of a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization.” It has been used in the past to prevent funding from going to UNFPA.

See: KFF Mexico City Policy explainer and related resources and Kemp-Kasten explainer.
Renewed Membership in the Geneva Consensus Declaration on Promoting Women’s Health and Strengthening the Family, January 24, 2025
PURPOSE: To rejoin the Geneva Consensus Declaration.

The United States informed signatories of the Geneva Consensus Declaration of its intent to rejoin immediately. Established in 2020, the declaration, led by the United States, has the following objectives: “to secure meaningful health and development gains for women; to protect life at all stages; to defend the family as the fundamental unit of society; and to work together across the UN system to realize these values.”

What Happens Next/Implications: The Geneva Consensus Declaration, initially crafted and signed by the U.S. – along with 31 other countries at the time – was meant to enshrine certain values and principles related to women’s health and family, including a rejection of the “international right to abortion.”  The Biden administration withdrew from the Consensus in 2021.
Review of and Changes to USAID, January 27, 2025
Reorganization of the Department of State, April 22, 2025
PURPOSE: To review and potentially reorganize USAID “to maximize efficiency and align operations with the national interest,” which may include the suspension or elimination of programs, projects, or activities; closing or suspending missions or posts; closing, reorganizing, downsizing, or renaming establishments, organizations, bureaus, centers, or offices; reducing the size of the workforce at such entities; and contracting out or privatizing functions or activities performed by federal employees.What Happens Next/Implications: Related to but separate from the Executive Order on reevaluating and realigning foreign aid and on the America first policy directive to the Secretary of State, the administration has made changes to and begun a review of USAID, the U.S. government’s international development agency which oversees and/or implements most U.S. global health programs (see, The U.S. Government and Global Health). Key developments are as follows:
On January 27, senior USAID career staff were placed on leave and hundreds of other staff were let go.
On February 2, the USAID website was taken down.
On February 3, the USAID building in DC was closed, which has prevented other staff from accessing it.
The President appointed Secretary of State Rubio as Acting USAID Administrator on February 3. Secretary Rubio has said that the agency has “conflicting, overlapping, and duplicative functions that it shares with the Department of State” and that its systems and processes are not “well synthesized, integrated, or coordinated, and often result in discord in the foreign policy and foreign relations of the United States.” President Trump and other administration officials have called for dissolving the agency altogether. Formal notification of the intent to review the agency was sent by Secretary Rubio to Congress on February 3.
On February 4, a notice was posted on the USAID website stating that on February 7, all USAID direct hire personnel would be placed on administrative leave globally, with the exception of “designated personnel responsible for mission­ critical functions, core leadership and specially designated programs.” The notice also said that staff posted outside the United States would need to return to the U.S. within 30 days.
On February 6, a lawsuit was filed by Democracy Forward and Public Citizen Litigation Group, on behalf of the American Foreign Service Association and American Federation of Government Employees, challenging the foreign aid funding freeze, the plan to put most staff on leave, and the fact that staff had already been placed on leave; on February 7, they filed for a temporary restraining order (TRO). That same day, a temporary restraining order was issued by the U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia preventing the government from placing additional staff on leave or evacuating staff back to the U.S., and requiring reinstatement of all staff already placed on leave, until February 14. The court did not grant a TRO on the funding freeze, on the grounds that the plaintiffs in this case did not demonstrate that the freeze caused them irreparable harm. On February 13, the court extended the TRO through February 21, at which time, the court determined that further preliminary injunctive relief was not warranted and the TRO was ended, allowing the government to dismiss USAID staff.
On February 11, a lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on behalf of several U.S. organizations challenging the executive order pausing foreign aid, and subsequent actions freezing foreign aid and dissolving USAID, and asking the court to temporarily restrain and preliminarily and permanently enjoin Defendants from implementing these actions. In a February 13 ruling, a federal court issued a TRO preventing the Trump administration from freezing foreign aid assistance but stated that the proposed injunctions related to USAID were overbroad (in a separate case, the district court ended the TRO on dismissing USAID staff – see above).
On February 13, a lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland by 26 former and current employees of USAID, suing Elon Musk and DOGE for taking actions to control and dissolve the agency. On February 18, the plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary injunction. The defendants responded on February 24 and the plaintiffs replied on February 26. On March 18, the court granted a preliminary injunction, requiring the defendants to reverse many of the actions taken to dissolve USAID, and on March 21, the defendants filed an appeal on the preliminary injunction. On March 25, the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals granted the defendants’ motion for a temporary stay on the preliminary injunction, allowing DOGE to resume its efforts to dissolve USAID, until March 27. The following day on March 28, the court granted defendants’ motion for a stay, clearing the path for DOGE to continue its work dissolving USAID.
On February 18, a lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on behalf of the Personal Services Contractor Association (representing USAID personal service contractors) challenging the suspension of foreign assistance and the actions related to USAID, including “steps to dismantle USAID, cripple its operations, or transfer its functions to the State Department without Congressional authorization”. On February 19, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a temporary restraining order. On March 6, the court denied the TRO request.
On March 28, Secretary Rubio announced that the Department of State and USAID have notified Congress on their intent to “undertake a reorganization that would involve realigning certain USAID functions to the Department by July 1, 2025, and discontinuing the remaining USAID functions that do not align with Administration priorities.” Additionally, nearly all the remaining USAID staff received notice that they would be subject to a final reduction-in-force.
On April 22, Secretary Rubio announced the Department of State’s reorganization plan and new organization chart. The plan states that it would consolidate functions and remove non-statutory programs that are “misaligned with America’s core national interests.”
On April 28, a lawsuit was filed by a group of labor unions, non-profits, and local governments challenging the administration’s moves to drastically reshape several federal agencies without congressional approval (American Federation of Government Employees v. Trump). The district court issued a TRO on May 9 and preliminary injunction on May 22 ordering the administration to pause large-scale reductions in force, program eliminations, and other actions related to federal agency restructuring. An emergency motion by the government for a stay pending appeal of the district court’s preliminary injunction was denied on May 30.
On May 2 and May 30, the White House released information on its budget request for FY 2026, noting the reorganization of USAID into the Department of State.
On May 29, the Department of State notified Congress of its reorganization plans, including absorbing USAID’s continued functions.
On June 13, the district court in American Federation of Government Employees v. Trump ruled that the actions of the Department of State, including the reorganization announcement and notification to Congress, were in violation of the preliminary injunction.
On July 8, the U.S. Supreme Court granted the government’s request for a stay of the preliminary injunction pending resolution of the appeals case in American Federation of Government Employees v. Trump, allowing the government to move forward with large-scale reductions to federal agency operations and workforces, including at the State Department.

While initially created through Executive Order in 1961 as part of the State Department, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 established it as an independent agency within the executive branch. As such, the Executive branch does not have authority to dissolve it without Congress, and Congress also requires notification first as well as consultation on any proposed changes.
Withdrawing the United States From and Ending Funding to Certain United Nations Organizations and Reviewing United States Support to All International Organizations, February 4, 2025
PURPOSE: To review United States participation in all international intergovernmental organizations, conventions, and treaties and to withdraw from and end funding to certain United Nations (U.N.) organizations.

The U.S. “helped found” the U.N. “after World War II to prevent future global conflicts and promote international peace and security.  But some of [its] agencies and bodies have drifted from this mission and instead act contrary to the interests of the United States while attacking our allies and propagating anti-Semitism.”
States that the U.S. “will reevaluate our commitment to these institutions,” including three organizations that “deserve renewed scrutiny”:
the U.N. Human Rights Council (UNHRC; the U.S. will not participate in and withhold its contribution to the budget of the body),
the U.N. Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO; the U.S. will conduct a review of its membership in the body within 90 days), and
the U.N. Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA; reiterates that the U.S. will not contribute to the body).

    Requires that within 180 days:
  • • the Secretary of State, with the U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., conduct a review of all international intergovernmental organizations of which the U.S. is a member and provides any type of funding or other support, and all conventions and treaties to which the United States is a party, to determine which organizations, conventions, and treaties are contrary to the interests of the United States and whether such organizations, conventions, or treaties can be reformed; and
the Secretary of State to report the findings of the review to the President, through the National Security Advisor, and provide recommendations as to whether the U.S. should withdraw from any such organizations, conventions, or treaties.
What Happens Next/Implications: With a long history of multilateral global health engagement, the U.S. is often the largest or one of the largest donors to multilateral health efforts (i.e., multi-country, pooled support often directed through an international organization). It provided $2.4 billion in assessed or core contributions in FY 2024 – 19% of overall U.S. global health funding – as well as more funding in voluntary or non-core contributions.

The U.S. is also a signatory or party to numerous global health-related international conventions, treaties, and agreements; these include those that played a role in the global COVID-19 response (such as the International Health Regulations). It often has participated in negotiations for new international instruments, although the Trump administration indicated in a Jan. 20, 2025, Executive Order, listed above, that the U.S. would no longer engage in the Pandemic Agreement (sometimes called the “Pandemic Treaty”) negotiations.

This Executive Order will have immediate impacts via the ordered actions related to the three U.N. organizations specified, much as the impacts of the Jan. 20, 2025, Executive Order on the World Health Organization (WHO, which initiated U.S. withdrawal from membership and halted U.S. funding) are already being seen. Beyond these, additional impacts of this Executive Order will be determined by the findings and recommendations of the international organizations and conventions review, particularly if U.S. support for or membership in some international organizations is recommended to be reduced or eliminated and if it recommends the U.S. withdraw from any international agreements.

Congressional notification and oversight of any proposed changes will also be important to watch, including debates about whether advice or consent or congressional notification periods are or may be required prior to withdrawing the U.S. from international instruments such as treaties.

The administration has already signaled plans to discontinue support for several international organizations in its budget request for FY 2026 by proposing eliminated funding for Gavi, the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO), the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), and the World Health Organization (WHO). However, Congress will determine final funding levels and whether to include these eliminations in its appropriations bills.

The 180 day review of all international intergovernmental organizations goes through August 3, 2025.
Memorandum For The Heads Of Executive Departments And Agencies, February 6, 2025
PURPOSE: The memorandum seeks to “stop funding Nongovernmental Organizations that undermine the national interest and administration priorities”.

The memorandum:

States: it is Administration policy “to stop funding NGOs [Nongovernmental Organizations] that undermine the national interest.”
Directs heads of executive departments and agencies to review all funding that agencies provide to NGOs and “to align future funding decisions with the interests of the United States and with the goals and priorities of my Administration, as expressed in executive action; as otherwise determined in the judgment of the heads of agencies; and on the basis of applicable authorizing statues, regulations, and terms.”
What Happens Next/Implications: This memo aligns with other Executive actions that target federal funding for global health and foreign assistance programs. Implementation of this memo could result in the Administration halting funding to global health NGOs they determine “do not align with administration priorities.” No criteria for how this determination will be made has been provided.

The majority of U.S. global health assistance is channeled through NGOs. In FY22, for example, 62% of U.S. global health funding was provided to NGOs as prime partners (45% to U.S.-based NGOs and 17% to foreign-based NGOs) and others are likely sub-recipients of U.S. assistance.* As such, this Order could have a significant impact on NGOs if it is determined that they do not align with administration policies.

*Source: KFF analysis of data from www.foreignassistance.gov.
Addressing Egregious Actions of The Republic of South Africa, February 7, 2025
PURPOSE: To stop U.S. support for South Africa due to its “commission of rights violations in its country or its ‘undermining United States foreign policy, which poses national security threats to our Nation, our allies, our African partners, and our interests.”

“It is the policy of the United States that, as long as South Africa continues these unjust and immoral practices that harm our Nation:
(a)  the United States shall not provide aid or assistance to South Africa; and
(b)  the United States shall promote the resettlement of Afrikaner refugees escaping government-sponsored race-based discrimination, including racially discriminatory property confiscation.”

ACTIONS:

All executive departments and agencies, including USAID, shall, to the maximum extent allowed by law, halt foreign aid or assistance delivered or provided to South Africa, and shall promptly exercise all available authorities and discretion to halt such aid or assistance.
The head of each agency may permit the provision of any such foreign aid or assistance that, in the discretion of the relevant agency head, is necessary or appropriate.
The Secretary of State and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall take appropriate steps, consistent with law, to prioritize humanitarian relief, including admission and resettlement through the United States Refugee Admissions Program, for Afrikaners in South Africa. A plan shall be submitted to the President through the Assistant to the President and Homeland Security Advisor.
What Happens Next/Implications: South Africa receives a significant amount of global health assistance, particularly for HIV/AIDS, from the United States government. The executive order allows the heads of U.S. agencies to permit the provision of foreign aid or assistance under this order at their discretion. On February 10, the U.S. Embassy and Consulates in South Africa announced that PEPFAR would not be impacted by this Executive Order and could continue under the limited waiver already granted to the foreign aid funding freeze. No other exceptions have yet been announced.

The Government of South Africa has issued a statement in response to the Executive Order that, among other things, expresses concern “by what seems to be a campaign of misinformation and propaganda aimed at misrepresenting our great nation.”

Notes and Sources:

*There are several other Executive Actions issued by the President that instruct all government agencies on a variety of topics and as such broadly affect global health program operations but are not specific to global health. These include, for example, Executive Actions withdrawing from the Paris Agreement under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and ending DEI programs. These are not included in this resource.

Sources: White House, https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/; State Department, www.state.gov.

U.S. Foreign Aid Freeze & Dissolution of USAID: Timeline of Events

Published: Sep 10, 2025

Starting on his first day of his second term in office, President Trump and his administration have taken several executive actions that directly impact U.S. global health efforts. This timeline, which is a companion resource to components of KFF’s Overview of President Trump’s Executive Actions on Global Health, provides a detailed overview of actions, including counter-actions, related to the administration’s efforts to freeze all U.S. foreign aid, dissolve the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), which implements most U.S. global health programs, and reorganize the Department of State. It will be updated as needed to reflect additional developments. 


About Half of Adults with ACA Marketplace Coverage are Small Business Owners, Employees, or Self-Employed

Published: Sep 10, 2025

The enhanced premium tax credits, created under the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) and later extended through the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), have reduced premiums for millions of Marketplace enrollees. They have also contributed substantially to Marketplace enrollment more than doubling to 24.3 million people in 2025.

Currently, over nine in 10 enrollees (92%) receive some amount of premium tax credit. If these enhanced tax credits expire at the end of 2025, out-of-pocket premiums would rise by over 75% on average for the vast majority of individuals and families buying coverage through the Affordable Care Act (ACA) Marketplaces. Additionally, insurers are proposing an increase in gross premiums (before premium tax credits are applied) of 18%, partly due to the impact on the risk pool of the expiration of enhanced premium tax credits. This double-digit increase would affect government costs for tax credits, as well as Marketplace enrollees not receiving premium assistance.

Much of the discussion about the ACA Marketplaces centers on individuals and families buying coverage on their own. However, many enrollees are connected to small businesses or are self-employed. A previous KFF analysis found that 38% of adult individual market enrollees under age 65 making over 400% of the federal poverty line (FPL) are self-employed, compared to 7% of adults (ages 19-64 years) with incomes over four times poverty nationally. If the enhanced premium tax credits expire, individuals and families with household incomes over 400% FPL would no longer be eligible for any premium tax credits, leaving them with the full cost of their health insurance premium.

Using data from the Current Population Survey (CPS) Annual Social and Economic Supplement, we estimate that 48% of adults under age 65 enrolled in individual market (direct purchase) coverage are either employed by a small business with fewer than 25 workers, self-employed entrepreneurs, or small business owners. In other words, about half of adult enrollees in the individual health insurance market – the vast majority of which is purchased through the ACA Marketplaces – is affiliated with a small business. For context, 16% of all adults under age 65 nationwide are employed by a small business or are self-employed.

Nearly Half of Individual Market Enrollees Work for a Small Business or Are Self-Employed

For many employees of small businesses and self-employed individuals, the individual market functions as their main source of comprehensive health insurance outside of traditional employer coverage. Unlike larger firms, small businesses are less likely to offer health benefits to their employees, leaving workers and entrepreneurs dependent on the affordability and stability of the individual market.

The enhanced premium tax credits have lowered premium costs for enrollees across the Marketplaces. If those subsidies expire as scheduled at the end of 2025, individual market enrollees—including many people tied to small businesses—would face higher out-of-pocket premiums.

Methods

The data above is based on KFF analysis of 2024 CPS Annual Social and Economic Supplement. The analysis includes adults under age 65 who directly purchase their health insurance and are not currently students. People were considered to be self-employed or employed by a small business if they self-reported being self-employed or working at a business with between one and 24 employees. Employer size is measured for the primary job in the previous year, and may be different at the time of the survey.

Health Costs Associated with Pregnancy, Childbirth, and Infant Care

Published: Sep 9, 2025

Pregnancy is one of the most common causes of hospitalization among non-elderly people. In addition to the cost of the birth itself, pregnancy also involves costs associated with prenatal visits as well as treatment for psychological and medical conditions that can arise during pregnancy, birth, and the postpartum period.

This analysis examines the health costs associated with pregnancy, childbirth, post-partum care, and infancy using a subset of claims from the Merative MarketScan Encounter Database from 2021 through 2023 for enrollees with employer-sponsored health insurance plans and their young (two years old or less) children. It finds that health costs associated with pregnancy, childbirth, and post-partum care average a total of $20,416, including $2,743 in out-of-pocket expenses, for women enrolled in employer plans. In addition to the cost of pregnancy and birth, newborns, defined as children with fewer than three months of enrollment, had average total health care spending of $5,820, including $475 in out-of-pocket costs.

The analysis can be found on the Peterson-KFF Health System Tracker, an information hub dedicated to monitoring and assessing the performance of the U.S. health system.

Five Key Facts About People Experiencing Homelessness

Published: Sep 9, 2025

Editorial Note: This brief was updated on September 9, 2025 with additional information about people with HIV.

President Trump recently signed an executive order on homelessness, mental health, and substance use that leverages federal funding priorities and other administrative tools to encourage states to ban public drug use, remove unhoused people from public spaces, and broaden civil commitment laws to permit involuntary psychiatric civil commitments in more circumstances. The Trump administration also invoked the Home Rule Act to place D.C.’s police force under federal control and deployed the National Guard to clear homeless encampments in the city and address crime. These actions follow nationwide passage of court-backed state laws making it easier for law enforcement to ticket, fine, or arrest people sleeping on public property.

According to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), more than 770,000 people were experiencing homelessness on a single night in January 2024, the highest ever recorded. The links between homelessness and health are complex, and past KFF research found that people with prior experiences of homelessness have disproportionate physical and mental health needs and face greater socioeconomic challenges compared to those who have never experienced homelessness. People experiencing homelessness who are unsheltered also experience higher rates of chronic homelessness, chronic disease, mental illness, and substance abuse than those who are sheltered.

This data note reviews trends in homelessness and characteristics of people who are homeless using data from HUD’s Point-in-Time (PIT) count of sheltered and unsheltered people experiencing homelessness. The PIT count is generally conducted on a single night during the last ten days of January. These estimates may undercount the total number of people experiencing homelessness, particularly among the unsheltered.

1. From 2018-2024, the number of people experiencing homelessness on a single night increased nearly 40% to over 771,000 people, with nearly four in ten (36%) staying in unsheltered locations.

The HUD PIT survey counts people experiencing homelessness in both sheltered and unsheltered settings on a single night. People are counted as unsheltered if they sleep in locations not ordinarily used as a regular sleeping accommodation, such as cars, parks, abandoned buildings, or campgrounds. The remainder of people experiencing homelessness were in sheltered locations, with nearly six in ten (56%) staying in emergency shelters and nearly one in ten (9%) in transitional housing, which is temporary housing with supportive services (Figure 1). Between 2018 and 2024, the number of people experiencing homelessness rose by nearly 40%. This increase was primarily driven by the growth in the number of people staying in emergency shelters and experiencing unsheltered homelessness, while the number of people in transitional housing declined over the same period. Nearly half of the overall increase occurred between 2023 and 2024, during which the total number of people experiencing homelessness increased by 18%. According to HUD, rising housing costs and the end of the COVID-19 public health emergency in May 2023, which ended the eviction moratorium and other income and safety net programs, drove these recent increases.

Beyond shifts in sheltered and unsheltered homelessness, the number of people experiencing “chronic homelessness”—defined by HUD as long-term or repeated homelessness among people with a disability—increased 73% between 2018 and 2024 (from about 97,000 to 168,000). However, the number of adults experiencing homelessness who were veterans fell 13% from 2018 to 2024, making up 5% of the share of all adults experiencing homelessness in 2024, similar to their share of the general adult population (6%). An increase in housing assistance programs from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) in recent years likely drove this decrease.

From 2018-2024, The Number of People Experiencing Homelessness Increased Nearly 40%, With Nearly 40% Unsheltered in 2024

2. In 2024, over eight in ten (81%) people experiencing homelessness were adults, but the number of children experiencing homelessness grew at double the rate of adults.

On a single night in January 2024, there were over 623,000 adults and 148,000 children experiencing homelessness, with adults consistently representing about eight in ten of all people experiencing homelessness since 2018 (Figure 2). However, from 2023 to 2024, the number of children experiencing homelessness grew by 33% (from about 112,000 to 148,000), double the percentage increase among adults, which increased by 15% (from about 541,000 to 623,000). Most households with children experiencing homelessness are sheltered, as children made up less than one in ten unsheltered people in 2024. Housing insecurity during childhood is associated with negative health outcomes later in life, including anxiety and depression. Older adults also represented a growing share of the number of people experiencing homelessness, with the share of people experiencing homelessness ages 55 and older increasing by 6% from 2023 to 2024. Research found that this aging population of older adults has comprised a disproportionate share of single adults experiencing homelessness, which may drive future increases in the share of older adults experiencing homelessness.

While Eight in Ten People Experiencing Homelessness Are Adults, the Number of Children Experiencing Homelessness Grew More Rapidly from 2023-2024

3. In 2024, Southern and Western states had higher shares of people who were experiencing homelessness who were unsheltered compared to other parts of the country.

States in the Northeast and West had higher rates of people experiencing homelessness per 10,000 people than elsewhere in the country on a single night in January 2024 (Figure 3). The share of people experiencing homelessness who were unsheltered by state were highest in Southern and Western states, including in California (66%), Oregon (62%), Alabama (59%), and Florida (54%). In contrast, the shares of people who were experiencing homelessness who were unsheltered were lowest in New York (4%) and Vermont (5%), despite these states having relatively high rates of people experiencing homelessness per 10,000 people. These patterns may reflect a combination of local factors, including climate, housing costs, shelter capacity, right to shelter laws, and law enforcement that bring more people into emergency shelters.

In 2024, Shares of People Experiencing Homelessness Who Were Unsheltered Were Highest in Southern and Western States

4. In 2024, about seven in ten (68%) people experiencing homelessness were people of color.

White (32%), Hispanic (31%), and Black (30%) people each accounted for about three in ten of people experiencing homelessness on a single night in January 2024, with other racial and ethnic groups making up smaller shares (less than 5%) (Figure 4). Black, Hispanic, AIAN, and NHPI people made up a disproportionate share of the people experiencing homelessness compared to their share of the total population.

In 2024, About Seven in Ten People Experiencing Homelessness Were People of Color

5. In 2024, adults experiencing homelessness were more likely to have serious mental illness (SMI), substance use disorder (SUD), and HIV/AIDS than the general population.

In 2024, over two in ten (22%, or 140,000) adults experiencing homelessness on a single night in January met HUD’s SMI definition, compared to about 5-6% of adults overall according to the National Survey of Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) (Figure 5). A similar share (18%, or 113,000) of adults were identified as having a chronic substance use disorder (SUD) according to HUD’s definition in the point-in-time count, compared to about 3% of adults in the general population who met NSDUH criteria for severe SUD. These shares are also higher among adults experiencing unsheltered homelessness, with the share of those with chronic SUD increasing in recent years. SMI and SUD often co-occur—about one-quarter of people with SMI also has an SUD—but HUD’s publicly available data do not report the overlap of these conditions. About 2% (11,000) of adults experiencing homelessness had HIV/AIDS, compared to less than 1% of the general population living with HIV. In addition, 15% of people with HIV experienced housing instability in the past 12 months.

In 2024, 22% of Adults Experiencing Homelessness Had a Serious Mental Illness, 18% Had a Substance Use Disorder, and 2% Had HIV/AIDS