Racial health disparities could widen as states grapple with Trump cuts, experts warn

posted in: All news | 0

Nada Hassanein, Stateline.org

Racial health disparities may widen as states, universities and nonprofits grapple with federal funding cuts to programs that were aimed at filling gaps in care, public health experts say.

Related Articles


Congressional stalemate creates chaos for Obamacare shoppers


Trump’s HHS orders state Medicaid programs to help find undocumented immigrants


Allina Health clinic doctors conduct 1-day strike


FDA warns websites selling unapproved Botox for cosmetic purposes


Can a weight loss and diabetes drug treat long COVID?

As part of its federal restructuring and crackdown on diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs, the Trump administration has been shuttering federal offices and rescinding grants dedicated to addressing worse health care access and outcomes for racial minorities.

The shake-up has caused some state agencies and nonprofits to pause programs and some groups and universities to apply for foundation grants instead.

Hundreds of grants have been terminated for state, local and territorial health departments as well as nonprofits and universities, many of which addressed health equity across rural, low-income and communities of color.

The nation’s racial health disparities were laid bare during the COVID-19 pandemic, when the virus killed Black, Hispanic and Indigenous people at higher rates than white people. The police murder of George Floyd in May 2020 also fueled a racial reckoning across the nation, prompting efforts by states, universities, health systems and the federal government to address racial health disparities.

Those approaches ranged from targeted vaccine campaigns and efforts to enroll more people of color in clinical trials to corrections of diagnostic tests that relied on inaccurate information about race and biology.

Communities of color have long had less access to health care, increased exposure to environmental pollutants and higher rates of certain chronic illnesses and cancer deaths. They also have more diabetes-related amputations because of a lack of access to care. And specific genetic diseases, such as sickle cell disease, disproportionately affect Black people.

“COVID revealed the impact of health disparities to individual health — as well as how not addressing these disparities undermines the health system for everyone,” said Dr. Georges Benjamin, executive director of the American Public Health Association.

Now, many of the programs trying to address health disparities are being rolled back.

As a result, health policy experts, clinicians and researchers fear those disparities will widen as states, universities and nonprofits grapple with lost federal dollars while the administration continues to limit federal funding for DEI programs. In July, the U.S. Department of Justice released guidance saying such initiatives should not receive federal funding, alleging they are “discriminatory.”

Entities that receive federal funds “must ensure that their programs and activities comply with federal law and do not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, or other protected characteristics—no matter the program’s labels, objectives, or intentions,” the news release said.

Several state and local health officials were reluctant to speak with Stateline on the record about how the federal administration’s DEI crackdown has left them in a bind, fearing retaliation or targeting by the federal government. The White House did not respond to Stateline’s request for comment.

“My concern about what the administration is doing is that they are, in effect, making these disparities worse,” Benjamin said. “Everybody’s health is not the same. … It’s important to know that the disparities are really profound.”

Benjamin added that the cumulative effect of disparities means more late-stage disease — costing both patients and health systems more.

“There’s a trope or misunderstanding out there that DEI is a ‘woke’-related agenda. DEI is not a ‘woke’ agenda. DEI is an American agenda, because it’s really one that is the same thing as ‘rising tides lift all boats,’” said Brandon Wilson, senior director of Health Innovation and Public Health at Community Catalyst, a health equity advocacy organization. “When you cut [resources] off, you’re actually disproportionately impacting those who are already impacted.”

‘Increasing need’

The administration canceled billions of dollars in grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Health and Human Services.

Many of the grants helped recipients create solutions tailored to their communities’ needs and strengths.

At least three dozen state, local and territorial health departments have had pandemic-era grants that addressed health equity terminated. While originally focused on COVID-19, agencies have since used that grant money for other public health efforts: testing and contact tracing for a wide range of diseases, better data reporting, and community partnerships that address social and environmental effects on health.

The money was part of a $2.2 billion national health equity initiative that aimed to address vulnerabilities and protect those communities ahead of the next outbreak.

The Department of Health and Human Services told media such cancellations were due to the pandemic emergency ending in 2023.

At NIH, the administration terminated more than 5,400 NIH research grants, although about 2,800 were reinstated. Canceled grants included research toward illnesses like HIV and AIDS, which disproportionately affect Black and Hispanic people as well as gay and transgender people.

The Trump administration has also gutted federal offices dedicated to fighting disparities, including the Offices of Minority Health under the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and the Department of Health and Human Services.

At the state level, the Arkansas Department of Health recently shut down its own minority health-focused office. Ashley Whitlow, a spokesperson for the department, said in a statement that it “relies on federal grant funding to support a variety of public health programs.”

“The recent reduction in program staff reflects the Arkansas Department of Health’s ongoing efforts to operate more efficiently with the resources available. Despite these changes, ADH remains fully committed to serving communities across the state,” the statement said.

Meanwhile, Maryland’s Department of Health said its minority health office is funded through state general funds and not directly impacted by the federal cuts.

The nation has seen a spike in congenital syphilis cases, which disproportionately occur among Black and Indigenous families.

“Regardless of whether you’re at the highest risk, any outbreak that’s not controlled can spread widely and broadly, and you can see that that’s what’s happening with measles,” said Dr. Julie Morita, former executive vice president of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and former health commissioner Chicago Department of Public Health.

But states likely can’t replace all the lost federal dollars.

“You’ve got declining capacity, and increasing need — which is a formula for problems,” said Richard Frank, director of the Brookings Institution Center on Health Policy.

“It’s impossible to make all that up with state and local dollars,” he continued. “You’re going to see programs that serve real people getting pulled back.”

Frank and Wilson also expressed concern about the Medicaid changes included in the broad tax and spending law President Donald Trump signed in July. The law is projected to cut federal Medicaid spending by an estimated $911 billion over the next decade, largely because new work requirements will push people off the rolls. Data shows the majority of Medicaid enrollees already work, and experts say many will be kicked off the rolls due to difficulties in states’ reporting processes. Black and Hispanic people are disproportionately represented on the Medicaid rolls.

OB-GYN Dr. Versha Pleasant, a clinical assistant professor at the University of Michigan, directs the Cancer Genetics and Breast Health Clinic at Von Voigtlander Women’s Hospital. She treats patients at high risk for breast and ovarian cancers. Black women have an almost 40% higher risk of death from breast cancer than white women.

“That, to me, is unacceptable,” she said, adding that such disparities speak to the need for ongoing programs to “provide everyone with a fair chance at leading a long and healthy life.”

“If we don’t make a special effort to save the most vulnerable lives … where does that leave us?” she continued. “The changes that we’re seeing are only going to magnify preexisting challenges.”

Data and dollars

Dr. Sarah Rudman, acting public health officer at the Santa Clara County Public Health Department in California, and others have told Stateline that federal officials are informing health agencies that race and ethnicity data are no longer required to be reported.

“We are being asked to change the way we collect our own data here and report it,” Rudman said, adding that her county is going to continue collecting data to “understand who is here, who’s experiencing what health outcome and what they need.”

Many families, in the shadow of the county’s Silicon Valley, still struggle with poverty — more than 27,000 children suffer food insecurity, United Way Bay Area says.

“It is sometimes surprising and striking to people to understand how much poverty and other types of vulnerability are hidden among the more visible wealth of Silicon Valley, and that’s where we’ve dedicated our resources,” Rudman said.

“It’s hard to even imagine what my colleagues in smaller areas of California or in other parts of the country are experiencing,” she added about lower-income counties. “We are feeling extremely strained and already in our second round of layoffs, knowing that many more are likely. So I think that the hits are going to be that much more significant in areas who have less resources than we do.”

Federal officials also canceled the county’s $5.7 million grant to address COVID-19-related disparities, used to shore up vulnerable communities ahead of the next disease outbreak, natural disaster or heat wave, Rudman said. The money helped the county conduct basic laboratory testing and vaccine outreach for a wide range of diseases, not just COVID-19.

Stateline reporter Nada Hassanein can be reached at nhassanein@stateline.org.

Stateline is part of States Newsroom, a national nonprofit news organization focused on state policy.

©2025 States Newsroom. Visit at stateline.org. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

Houston’s Top Magnet High Schools Could Become Private Partnership Charter Schools, Raising Equity Concerns

posted in: All news | 0

Each year, thousands of students apply for a seat at one of the top performing magnet high schools in the Houston Independent School District (HISD) through an open-enrollment lottery system. Regardless of their background, all district applicants have the same chance of being admitted to these elite schools if they meet the criteria for their specialized programs, including Houston’s storied Kinder High School for the Performing and Visual Arts (HSPVA).

But that opportunity could end under a proposal to turn seven of Houston ISD’s top public high schools into private partnerships under Senate Bill 1882—a state law that offers districts incentives to hand over public school campuses to private operators, including nonprofits, charter school operators, or higher education institutions.

On October 31, HISD announced that four of the district’s top performing magnet high schools—Challenge Early College High School, Energy Institute High School, Houston Academy for International Studies, and HSPVA—are moving forward with the district’s offer for “expanded flexibility and innovation opportunities” by creating a SB 1882 partnership by the 2026-27 school year. Three other top-performing magnet high schools—Carnegie Vanguard High School, DeBakey High School for Health Professions, and Eastwood Academy—are still evaluating the possibility. 

District spokesperson Lana Hill told the Texas Observer that these schools may not be required to participate in the lottery system. They “are going to be able to make their own decisions,” she said. “If one school chooses to do one thing, that doesn’t mean that another school has to.” 

That has parents and teachers concerned that the district’s top schools will not be equally accessible to all students. Jackie Anderson, president of the Houston Federation of Teachers, told the Observer that she worries these operators will “pick and choose students” to enroll like private schools and other charters. Anderson added the teachers union is against “any type of inequities that this may cause for our students.” 

Historically, Houston ISD’s magnet school program began as an effort to desegregate the district in 1975. Still, critics have long complained that there were already more hurdles for students of color from lower-income neighborhoods to enter the top magnet schools.  

Under ex-superintendent Terry Grier, who ran Houston ISD from 2009 to 2016, the district created a single lottery system for students to apply to the district’s more than 100 magnets. Prior to this, each administered their own admissions. “We’re allowing principals to decide who gets in and who doesn’t. We accuse some of our charters of skimming. Well frankly, we’re doing some of the same things,” Grier said at a 2010 district board meeting.

In 2022, Millard House II, who served as superintendent until the state took over HISD in 2023 and replaced him, expanded efforts to inform parents about the magnet program and lengthened the application period so that more students would apply. 

SB 1882 partnerships offer greater autonomy for the operators to control the magnet schools’ curriculum, operations, and budgets—freeing them from some of the mandates instituted since 2023 under state-appointed superintendent Mike Miles. But, as the Observer previously reported, these partnerships—including schools run by the nonprofit that Miles formerly led—fall under a law for in-district charter schools that contains far fewer financial and academic guardrails than apply to other charters or public schools. And many previous partnerships have run into academic and financial issues.

This concerns parents like Crystal Toussant, whose daughter attends HSPVA. She told the Observer that, in the past, she has been able to resolve some complaints with the school through the district. She worries that “If you’re an individual entity, the accountability may end with the principal,” Toussant said. 

These private partnerships are largely governed by individual contracts between districts and operators. Districts then apply to TEA for the state financial and accountability benefits created by SB 1882; TEA’s website states that districts must submit a letter of intent for these applications by December 6. Hill told the Observer that the district “will continue working with principals and nonprofit partners to define the specific terms of each school’s performance contract” and that it plans to submit the contracts to the district board of managers for a vote during a public meeting next spring.

The Energy Institute High School and HSPVA already have affiliated nonprofits that could serve as the schools’ operating partners. 

According to Hill, district leaders have not decided how they would spend the extra funding SB 1882 partnership schools could bring. Current employees at the magnet schools, she said, apart from the school principal, would not be employees of the private operator but remain district employees with the same rights and benefits. 

Campus leaders at the seven schools are “absolutely not” required to enter into SB 1882 partnerships, and their schools would remain magnets if they chose not to participate, Hill said.

Ahead of a PTO meeting at the DeBakey High School for Health Professions next week, parent Lorri White said she plans to ask school leaders to take time to discuss the proposal with their schools’ stakeholders and to ask key questions. For her, this includes, “Are we rushing to do this? Is this going to be properly considered? How do we know if we’ve selected the right partner or if we’re just selling off our schools?” 

The post Houston’s Top Magnet High Schools Could Become Private Partnership Charter Schools, Raising Equity Concerns appeared first on The Texas Observer.

What is revenge saving and should you be doing it?

posted in: All news | 0

The investing information provided on this page is for educational purposes only. NerdWallet, Inc. does not offer advisory or brokerage services, nor does it recommend or advise investors to buy or sell particular stocks, securities or other investments.

Madison Hayes considers herself to be in her “full-blown revenge saving era.”

Related Articles


FAA says it will list airports where it is reducing flights during the government shutdown


IRS Direct File won’t be available next year. Here’s what that means for taxpayers


France moves to suspend Shein’s online market over listings for illegal firearms and sex dolls


Xcel pares Wisconsin solar farm project, adds battery backup 


Gemini AI to transform Google Maps into a more conversational experience

During the pandemic and the real estate boom that followed, Hayes (who is a realtor) was very focused on business growth and basically ignored her personal finances. Late last year, she realized how much money she’d spent on things like food delivery, subscription boxes and social memberships she never had time to use.

“Now I’m saving 48% of my income year-to-date,” says Hayes, who owns Gateway Realty Group in St. Louis, Missouri. “I treat saving like a competition with my past self.”

Because she owns a business, Hayes says she keeps four months of operating expenses in her bank account. She also has her bank automatically transfer any money in excess of her reserve to a high-yield savings account at the end of each month.

“It’s simple, but it’s changed everything,” she says.

Hayes isn’t an outlier. She’s part of a subset of Americans shifting their focus from spending to super-saving — a trend known as “revenge saving.”

What is revenge saving?

“Revenge saving” translates to saving very aggressively, often after a period of overspending or financial uncertainty.

“They’re going to try to outdo themselves, and save probably in a way they never have,” says Martin Lynch, president of the Financial Counseling Association of America. Lynch says the only time he’s seen saving this intense is with couples focused on saving money for a house down payment.

“Those are your real spartan savers who cut out everything,” Lynch says. “I’ve even cautioned the home buyers not to be that aggressive because it just means there’s a greater chance they’re going to fail.”

For many revenge savers, it’s about feeling like you’re in charge of your situation, says Lev Mandel, a financial life strategist in Walnut Creek, California. “When inflation is high, when the economy’s not great or there are questions around it,” Mandel says, “revenge saving brings back that feeling of control.”

Why is revenge saving having a moment?

Post-pandemic, people engaged in revenge spending — splurging on experiences and travel after years of feeling restricted. Revenge saving may be a reversal of the trend.

“It’s the pendulum swinging back to, ‘Hey, I’ve done all the vacations and things like that, and now I really need to get my house in order,’” says Marcel Miu, a certified financial planner in Austin, Texas.

People also may be reacting to news of layoffs and economic uncertainty in general — and that fear leads them to stockpile as much cash as they can, Lynch says.

“Americans typically start saving in advance of and during periods of recession and increasing unemployment,” Lynch says. “Just the fact that people see that others are going to be out of work makes them think, ‘Oh, that could be me.’”

But isn’t saving a good thing?

Saving money is definitely near the top of the “smart choices” list. But it’s a balancing act — saving money at the expense of other goals or to the detriment of living your life normally isn’t sustainable.

For instance, putting all your money into your 401(k) can leave you with little cash on hand for emergencies, Lynch says, while putting every dollar into your emergency fund and skipping 401(k) contributions can leave you worse off in retirement. And trimming your budget to the bone can lead to savings burnout.

“There has to be a balanced, thoughtful strategy,” Lynch says. “We don’t want to lurch from one side of the boat to the other when the seas get rough.”

How to revenge save without regret

If you’re feeling the urge to funnel buckets of money into savings, try these strategies to keep your financial plan balanced:

Have savings goals: Save for something specific, not just because you’re feeling anxious.
Prioritize: Make sure you’re paying off high-interest debt and covering your important financial goals, like retirement and college funds.
Automate: To the extent you can set up automatic transfers into savings or investment accounts, do it.
Set an end point: Pick a date to reevaluate and rebalance as needed.

As for Hayes, her savings goal is personal: She’s on track to pay off her mother’s mortgage next year for her 75th birthday. “She’s retired and has always been my biggest supporter,” Hayes says. “After all the years she’s spent cheering me on, I can’t wait to hand her the letter showing her house is officially paid off.”

More From NerdWallet

How a Personal Finance Expert Leverages Holiday Sales for Household Necessities
5 Scary Things About the Government Shutdown
Fed Cuts Rates; Powell Says Future Cuts ‘Far From’ Certain

Kate Ashford, CSA® writes for NerdWallet. Email: kashford@nerdwallet.com. Twitter: @kateashford.

Trump has other tariff options if the Supreme Court strikes down his worldwide import taxes

posted in: All news | 0

By PAUL WISEMAN, Associated Press Economics Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump has warned that the United States will be rendered “defenseless’’ and possibly “reduced to almost Third World status” if the Supreme Court strikes down the tariffs he imposed this year on nearly every country on earth.

Related Articles


At White House meeting, Hungary’s Orbán to seek Trump’s blessing to keep buying Russian oil


Nancy Pelosi won’t seek reelection, ending her storied career in the US House


FAA says it will list airports where it is reducing flights during the government shutdown


Shutdown progress in doubt as Democrats grow emboldened from election wins


Hegseth and Rubio share classified details on boat strikes with congressional leaders

The justices sounded skeptical during oral arguments Wednesday of his sweeping claims of authority to impose tariffs as he sees fit.

The truth, though, is that Trump will still have plenty of options to keep taxing imports aggressively even if the court rules against him. He can re-use tariff powers he deployed in his first term and can reach for others, including one that dates back to the Great Depression.

“It’s hard to see any pathway here where tariffs end,” said Georgetown trade law professor Kathleen Claussen. “I am pretty convinced he could rebuild the tariff landscape he has now using other authorities.”

At Wednesday’s hearing, in fact, lawyer Neal Katyal, representing small businesses suing to get the tariffs struck down, argued that Trump didn’t need the boundless authority he’s claimed to impose tariffs under 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). That is because Congress delegated tariff power to the White House in several other statutes — though it carefully limited the ways the president could use the authority.

“Congress knows exactly how to delegate its tariff powers,” Katyal said.

Tariffs have become a cornerstone of Trump’s foreign policy in his second term, with double-digit “reciprocal” tariffs imposed on most countries, which he has justified by declaring America’s longstanding trade deficits a national emergency.

The average U.S. tariff has gone from 2.5% when Trump returned to the White House in January to 17.9%, the highest since 1934, according to calculations by Yale University’s Budget Lab.

The president acted alone even though the U.S. Constitution specifically gives the power to tax – and impose tariffs – to Congress.

Still, Trump “will have other tools that can cause pain,’’ said Stratos Pahis of Brooklyn Law School. Here’s a look at some of his options:

Countering unfair trade practices

The United States has long had a handy cudgel to wallop countries it accuses of engaging in “unjustifiable,” “unreasonable” or “discriminatory” trade practices. That is Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974.

And Trump has made aggressive use of it himself — especially against China. In his first term, he cited Section 301 to impose sweeping tariffs on Chinese imports in a dispute over the sharp-elbowed tactics that Beijing was using to challenge America’s technological dominance. The U.S. is also using 301 powers to counter what it calls unfair Chinese practices in the shipbuilding industry.

“You’ve had Section 301 tariffs in place against China for years,” said Ryan Majerus, a partner at King & Spalding and a trade official in Trump’s first administration and in Biden’s.

There are no limits on the size of Section 301 tariffs. They expire after four years but can be extended.

But the administration’s trade representative must conduct an investigation and typically hold a public hearing before imposing 301 tariffs.

John Veroneau, general counsel for the U.S. trade representative in the George W. Bush administration, said Section 301 is useful in taking on China. But it has drawbacks when it comes to dealing with the smaller countries that Trump has hammered with reciprocal tariffs.

“Undertaking dozens and dozens of 301 investigations of all of those countries is a laborious process,” Veroneau said.

Targeting trade deficits

In striking down Trump’s reciprocal tariffs in May, the U.S. Court of International Trade ruled that the president couldn’t use emergency powers to combat trade deficits.

That is partly because Congress had specifically given the White House limited authority to address the problem in another statute: Section 122, also of the Trade Act of 1974. That allows the president to impose tariffs of up to 15% for up to 150 days in response to unbalanced trade. The administration doesn’t even have to conduct an investigation beforehand.

But Section 122 authority has never been used to apply tariffs, and there is some uncertainty about how it would work.

Protecting national security

In both of his terms, Trump has made aggressive use of his power — under Section 232 of Trade Expansion Act of 1962 — to impose tariffs on imports that he deems a threat to national security.

In 2018, he slapped tariffs on foreign steel and aluminum, levies he’s expanded since returning to the White House. He also plastered Section 232 tariffs on autos, auto parts, copper, lumber.

In September, the president even levied Section 232 tariffs on kitchen cabinets, bathroom vanities and upholstered furniture. “Even though people might roll their eyes” at the notion that imported furniture poses a threat to national security, Veroneau said, “it’s difficult to get courts to second-guess a determination by a president on a national security matter.”

Section 232 tariffs are not limited by law but do require an investigation by the U.S. Commerce Department. It’s the administration itself that does the investigating – also true for Section 301 cases — “so they have a lot of control over the outcome,” Veroneau said.

Reviving Depression-era tariffs

Nearly a century ago, with the U.S. and world economies in collapse, Congress passed the Tariff Act of 1930, imposing hefty taxes on imports. Known as the Smoot-Hawley tariffs (for their congressional sponsors), these levies have been widely condemned by economists and historians for limiting world commerce and making the Great Depression worse. They also got a memorable pop culture shoutout in the 1986 movie “Ferris Bueller’s Day Off.”

Section 338 of the law authorizes the president to impose tariffs of up to 50% on imports from countries that have discriminated against U.S. businesses. No investigation is required, and there’s no limit on how long the tariffs can stay in place.

Those tariffs have never been imposed — U.S. trade negotiators traditionally have favored Section 301 sanctions instead — though the United States used the threat of them as a bargaining chip in trade talks in the 1930s.

In September, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told Reuters that the administration was considering Section 338 as a Plan B if the Supreme Court ruled against Trump’s use of emergency powers tariffs.

The Smoot-Hawley legislation has a bad reputation, Veroneau said, but Trump might find it appealing. “To be the first president to ever use it could have some cache.”

Associated Press Staff Writer Lindsay Whitehurst contributed to this story.