US administration revokes $11B in funding for addiction, mental health care(npr.org)
npr.org
US administration revokes $11B in funding for addiction, mental health care
https://www.npr.org/2025/03/27/nx-s1-5342368/addiction-trump-mental-health-funding
46 comments
It's the same when you hear about how they built 100 tiny homes in LA and find out the programs budget was in the billions. Where is the money really going?
This is a monstrous twisting of the facts.
The plan to attack homelessness was a billion dollars.
The tiny home program is $80M.
They've build 100 homes so far of a planned 500, and are in the process of acquiring land.
In fact there will be 1200 homes built for that $80M, about $70,000 each.
I can't see any way you can know enough about this program that it exists, and yet spin this so horribly. "Billions to build 100 tiny homes in LA". If you knew of the 100 homes, you also know that about 500 have been constructed so far. But hey.
The plan to attack homelessness was a billion dollars.
The tiny home program is $80M.
They've build 100 homes so far of a planned 500, and are in the process of acquiring land.
In fact there will be 1200 homes built for that $80M, about $70,000 each.
I can't see any way you can know enough about this program that it exists, and yet spin this so horribly. "Billions to build 100 tiny homes in LA". If you knew of the 100 homes, you also know that about 500 have been constructed so far. But hey.
"Where is the money really going?"
That's what DOGE should lay out in a clear manner. But they don't.
That's what DOGE should lay out in a clear manner. But they don't.
Where did this claim come from?
The US Congress has budgeting authority. Says so in the constitution. The only fair way to do this sort of thing is hammer it out in Congress. Otherwise, it's just an exercise in deploying power, and people get upset. It's the other side of "no taxation without representation".
If the executive branch just up and does this as an exercise im dominance, it gives everyone whose metaphorical ox got hired the idea that they, too, can exercise dominance and get what they want.
If the executive branch just up and does this as an exercise im dominance, it gives everyone whose metaphorical ox got hired the idea that they, too, can exercise dominance and get what they want.
Your premise here seems to be that these programs are somehow meant to "solve" addiction, when in reality they're mostly critically underfunded, understaffed, attempts to paper over multiple sucking chest wounds.
The opioid crisis created a LOT of addicts, the rise of fentanyl is killing a lot of people, and combined with the mental health problems you tend to find in and around addict populations, this is a genuinely huge problem. Without a suitable mental health infrastructure, all you have left are the prisons, streets, and programs like this.
I agree that this is an inefficient way to address the problem and that a major re-evaluation is required, but probably in quite the opposite way you mean it.
The opioid crisis created a LOT of addicts, the rise of fentanyl is killing a lot of people, and combined with the mental health problems you tend to find in and around addict populations, this is a genuinely huge problem. Without a suitable mental health infrastructure, all you have left are the prisons, streets, and programs like this.
I agree that this is an inefficient way to address the problem and that a major re-evaluation is required, but probably in quite the opposite way you mean it.
No. The government's war on drugs created the opioid crisis.
I'm pretty sure that the Sackler family and Oxy did that.
I don't think it created it, but it exasperated it to extreme levels.
The the thing is, I agree, but I don't think that decision should be made unilaterally by a branch of government that has no constitutional authority to do so, under questionable circumstances, without expert input, in the middle of funding.
This is basically breaking a financial contract that was put in place by the branch of government that is constitutionally in control of financial contracts.
As I said elsewhere, it also is legally and conceptually at odds with declaring a National Emergency over drug traffic.
This is basically breaking a financial contract that was put in place by the branch of government that is constitutionally in control of financial contracts.
As I said elsewhere, it also is legally and conceptually at odds with declaring a National Emergency over drug traffic.
It's getting rolled up into another agency, kind of like when the when SAMHSA replaced the Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Administration (ADAMHA), consolidating treatment functions previously managed by the National Institute on Mental Health (NIMH), National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA), and National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA).
Again, these programs didn't always exist. Things shouldn't be talked about in relative terms, but absolute. We should spend X on a problem and based on that spending we should see Y. If we don't we should reevaluate. That's how normal accountable programs work and government should not be exempt
Again, these programs didn't always exist. Things shouldn't be talked about in relative terms, but absolute. We should spend X on a problem and based on that spending we should see Y. If we don't we should reevaluate. That's how normal accountable programs work and government should not be exempt
You honestly think anyone in the US wants to evaluate just why Americans turning to drugs? Nobody wants to open up that can of worms.
After binge watching hundreds of hours of police videos and journalists that ride with police I would lean towards prescription pain killers being the root cause. Doctors prescribe a powerful drug. The prescription expires. They turn to street alternatives Fentanyl at the moment. They are now zombies. Getting off of Fent is near impossible for most so they are run through the system. It takes 6 months of being in treatment to get 89% of people off that drug. Keeping people in treatment that long is challenging to put it mildly. According to law enforcement the only things making a difference are NARCAN and blocking Fentanyl from entering the country.
The problem here is that the same can be said to spending trillions of dollars _after_ COVID was gone.
It's quite common for goverments that cut spending aggressively getting hated (I have seen in other country where I was born and raised), but that's the only way to do it.
Politicians know that they usually don't get reelected after cutting spending, that's why they usually put in a temporary prime minister for that job.
It's quite common for goverments that cut spending aggressively getting hated (I have seen in other country where I was born and raised), but that's the only way to do it.
Politicians know that they usually don't get reelected after cutting spending, that's why they usually put in a temporary prime minister for that job.
and what branch has the constitutionally to throw my money at these issues?
Congress is the right answer to the question I think
I am all for efficiency and questioning what and how things are done. But this is just too heavy handed. I think DOGE is really not about efficiency but about reduction at any cost.
It’s not reduction, it’s killing checks and balances.
DOGE is about revenge. All of this is about sending a very clear message to certain people. The message is that intellectualism is under attack. Anyone going against what Trump and Co want is an enemy.
That's it. It isn't complicated. When you view Trump this way his actions make much more sense.
That's it. It isn't complicated. When you view Trump this way his actions make much more sense.
> but about reduction at any cost.
Destruction at any cost
Destruction at any cost
Kinda undermines the arguments about fentanyl from Canada (as if those were believable to begin with).
Why? I can understand the argument that this administration is wrong and will make things worse, but I don't think they are inconsistent arguments.
The right seems to be of the view that a policy closer to Singapore is smarter than that of, say, San Francisco.
In other words, increase penalties/enforcement of drug importation and treat drug dealers harshly, instead of spending lots of money on services for drug users, which arguably just leads to enabling them to continue to lead the life of a drug addict.
From my perspective, there's pros and cons to both approaches, but it's not unreasonable to look at a place like San Francisco and come away with the view that some of this funding is making things worse, not better, even for the addicts themselves.
The right seems to be of the view that a policy closer to Singapore is smarter than that of, say, San Francisco.
In other words, increase penalties/enforcement of drug importation and treat drug dealers harshly, instead of spending lots of money on services for drug users, which arguably just leads to enabling them to continue to lead the life of a drug addict.
From my perspective, there's pros and cons to both approaches, but it's not unreasonable to look at a place like San Francisco and come away with the view that some of this funding is making things worse, not better, even for the addicts themselves.
It was never believable.
almosthere(3)
And the fentanyl "from Canada" story is because there was a seizure up north in the US and was attributed to come from Canada (but may as well be going the other way) and amount was like 0.1% of total apprehensions. Most of the illegal guns in Canada come from the US though.
Yes, a lot of these funds were initially allocated for COVID-related needs, but they were later redirected to address mental health, addiction, and homelessness — areas that are chronically underfunded and where demand has surged.
I work closely with organizations providing these services, and none of them have the resources needed to fully meet the growing community needs. Despite that, they work tirelessly, and the impact of their work is immense.
To put this into perspective: • These proposed cuts represent just 0.5% of the HHS budget ($11B out of $1.7T), yet they target some of our most critical safety net programs.
• Cutting these services is incredibly risky — not just from a human impact perspective, but also economically.
• Addiction and mental health crises drive massive costs to our already overloaded healthcare system. Without these programs, downstream costs to hospitals, law enforcement, and public health will skyrocket.
• Criminal justice and public safety costs will increase. Untreated mental illness and substance use are strongly correlated with higher rates of incarceration, emergency interventions, and violent incidents, including mass shootings, where mental health is often a factor.
These cuts may save dollars now, but they will almost certainly cost us far more down the road. And the human impact will be immeasurable.
I work closely with organizations providing these services, and none of them have the resources needed to fully meet the growing community needs. Despite that, they work tirelessly, and the impact of their work is immense.
To put this into perspective: • These proposed cuts represent just 0.5% of the HHS budget ($11B out of $1.7T), yet they target some of our most critical safety net programs.
• Cutting these services is incredibly risky — not just from a human impact perspective, but also economically.
• Addiction and mental health crises drive massive costs to our already overloaded healthcare system. Without these programs, downstream costs to hospitals, law enforcement, and public health will skyrocket.
• Criminal justice and public safety costs will increase. Untreated mental illness and substance use are strongly correlated with higher rates of incarceration, emergency interventions, and violent incidents, including mass shootings, where mental health is often a factor.
These cuts may save dollars now, but they will almost certainly cost us far more down the road. And the human impact will be immeasurable.
> Trump administration announced abrupt cancellation and revocation of roughly $11.4 billion in COVID-era funding for grants linked to addiction, mental health and other programs.
The federal budget jumped from $4.4 trillion in 2019 to $6.7 trillion in 2022. These were emergency programs passed when economies were shut down, threatening state governments. We can’t treat these emergency measures as permanent.
The federal budget jumped from $4.4 trillion in 2019 to $6.7 trillion in 2022. These were emergency programs passed when economies were shut down, threatening state governments. We can’t treat these emergency measures as permanent.
Why not? That's how we handled baggage fees after the 2008 recession. And the TSA and PATRIOT act after 9/11. And the Selective Service after World War II. And federal electrical production and the minimum wage after the Great Depression. And federal deposit insurance after the Great Depression. And the Federal Reserve after the panic of 1907.
[deleted]
Interesting that NPR tries to brand the funding as if its for addiction and mental health care all throughout the article.
For comparison, here's what CNN says:
"These funds were largely used for Covid-19 testing, Covid-19 vaccination and Covid-19 global projects, according to HHS, including for community health workers focused on populations most at risk from Covid-19."
And here's what the Trump administration says:
"The COVID-19 pandemic is over, and HHS will no longer waste billions of taxpayer dollars responding to a non-existent pandemic that Americans moved on from years ago"
For comparison, here's what CNN says:
"These funds were largely used for Covid-19 testing, Covid-19 vaccination and Covid-19 global projects, according to HHS, including for community health workers focused on populations most at risk from Covid-19."
And here's what the Trump administration says:
"The COVID-19 pandemic is over, and HHS will no longer waste billions of taxpayer dollars responding to a non-existent pandemic that Americans moved on from years ago"
This reporter is just incorrect, coming up with an incorrect story based on an incorrect Substack post. The Trump administration quote you pasted is in this article.
FY 2012: The SAMHSA budget authority was $3,386,903,000
FY 2024: The President's Budget Request was $10.8 billion, an increase of $3.3 billion from the 2023 Enacted level.
That's about 9% increase every year. These programs didn't always exist and they have grown considerably over time while addiction and mental health have both gotten considerably worse during that period. I think it's worth re-evaluating to see if these programs are doing anything.