By MIKE STOBBE

NEW YORK (AP) — U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s motto is “ Make America Healthy Again,” but government cuts could make it harder to know if that’s happening.

Related Articles

States sue Trump administration for blocking the development of wind energy

A GOP congressman is peppered with questions about Trump during raucous town hall

South Dakota students weigh protest against university honors for homeland security chief Noem

Amid Cinco de Mayo celebrations, a tax on Mexican tomatoes looms

America’s long history of ‘checks and balances’ is being tested by Trump like rarely before

More than a dozen data-gathering programs that track deaths and disease appear to have been eliminated in the tornado of layoffs and proposed budget cuts rolled out in the Trump administration’s first 100 days.

The Associated Press examined draft and final budget proposals and spoke to more than a dozen current and former federal employees to determine the scope of the cuts to programs tracking basic facts about Americans’ health.

Among those terminated at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention were experts tracking abortions, pregnancies, job-related injuries, lead poisonings, sexual violence and youth smoking, the AP found.

“If you don’t have staff, the program is gone,” said Patrick Breysse, who used to oversee the CDC’s environmental health programs.

Federal officials have not given a public accounting of specific surveillance programs that are being eliminated.

Instead, a U.S. Department of Health and Human Services spokeswoman pointed the AP to a Trump administration budget proposal released Friday. It lacked specifics, but proposes to cut the CDC’s core budget by more than half and vows to focus CDC surveillance only on emerging and infectious diseases.

Kennedy has said some of the CDC’s other work will be moved to a yet-to-be-created agency, the Administration for a Healthy America. He also has said that the cuts are designed to get rid of waste at a department that has seen its budget grow in recent years.

“Unfortunately, this extra spending and staff has not improved our nation’s health as a country,” Kennedy wrote last month in The New York Post. “Instead, it has only created more waste, administrative bloat and duplication.”

Yet some health experts say the eliminated programs are not duplicative, and erasing them will leave Americans in the dark.

“If the U.S. is interested in making itself healthier again, how is it going to know, if it cancels the programs that helps us understand these diseases?” said Graham Mooney, a Johns Hopkins University public health historian.

The core of the nation’s health surveillance is done by the CDC’s National Center for Health Statistics. Relying on birth and death certificates, it generates information on birth rates, death trends and life expectancy. It also operates longstanding health surveys that provide basic data on obesity, asthma and other health issues.

The center has been barely touched in layoffs, and seems intact under current budget plans.

But many other efforts were targeted by the cuts, the AP found. Some examples:

Pregnancies and abortion

The Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System, which surveys women across the country, lost its entire staff — about 20 people.

It’s the most comprehensive collection of data on the health behaviors and outcomes before, during and after childbirth. Researchers have been using its data to investigate the nation’s maternal mortality problem.

Recent layoffs also wiped out the staffs collecting data on in vitro fertilizations and abortions.

Those cuts are especially surprising given that President Donald Trump said he wants to expand IVF access and that the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 playbook for his administration called for more abortion surveillance.

Lead poisoning

The CDC eliminated its program on lead poisoning in children, which helped local health departments — through funding and expertise — investigate lead poisoning clusters and find where risk is greatest.

Lead poisoning in kids typically stems from exposure to bits of old paint, contaminated dust or drinking water that passes through lead pipes. But the program’s staff also played an important role in the investigation of lead-tainted applesauce that affected 500 kids.

Last year, Milwaukee health officials became aware that peeling paint in aging local elementary schools was endangering kids. The city health department began working with CDC to test tens of thousands of students. That assistance stopped last month when the CDC’s lead program staff was terminated.

City officials are particularly concerned about losing expertise to help them track the long-term effects.

“We don’t know what we don’t know,” said Mike Totoraitis, the city’s health commissioner.

Environmental investigations

Also gone is the staff for the 23-year-old Environmental Public Health Tracking Program, which had information on concerns including possible cancer clusters and weather-related illnesses.

“The loss of that program is going to greatly diminish the ability to make linkages between what might be in the environment and what health might be affected by that,” Breysse said.

Transgender data

In some cases, it’s not a matter of staffers leaving, but rather the end of specific types of data collection.

Transgender status is no longer being recorded in health-tracking systems, including ones focused on violent deaths and on risky behaviors by kids.

Experts know transgender people are more likely to be victims of violence, but now “it’s going to be much more challenging to quantify the extent to which they are at higher risk,” said Thomas Simon, the recently retired senior director for scientific programs at the CDC’s Division of Violence Prevention.

Violence

The staff and funding seems to have remained intact for a CDC data collection that provides insights into homicides, suicides and accidental deaths involving weapons.

But CDC violence-prevention programs that acted on that information were halted. So, too, was work on a system that collects hospital data on nonfatal injuries from causes such as shootings, crashes and drownings.

Also going away, apparently, is the CDC’s National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey. The system is designed to pick up information that’s not found in law enforcement statistics. Health officials see that work as important, because not all sexual violence victims go to police.

Work injuries

The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, which tracks job-related illnesses and deaths and makes recommendations on how to prevent them, was gutted by the cuts.

Kennedy has said that 20% of the people laid off might be reinstated as the agency tries to correct mistakes.

That appeared to happen last month, when the American Federation of Government Employees said that NIOSH workers involved in a black lung disease program for coal miners had been temporarily called back.

But HHS officials did not answer questions about the reinstatement. The AFGE’s Micah Niemeier-Walsh later said the workers continued to have June termination dates and “we are concerned this is to give the appearance that the programs are still functioning, when effectively they are not.”

There’s been no talk of salvaging some other NIOSH programs, including one focused on workplace deaths in the oil and gas industries or a research project into how common hearing loss is in that industry.

Smoking and drugs

The HHS cuts eliminated the 17-member team responsible for the National Survey on Drug Use and Health, one of the main ways the government measures drug use.

Also axed were the CDC staff working on the National Youth Tobacco Survey.

There are other surveys that look at youth smoking and drug use, including the University of Michigan’s federally funded “Monitoring the Future” survey of schoolkids.

But the federal studies looked at both adults and adolescents, and provided insights into drug use by high school dropouts. The CDC also delved into specific vaping and tobacco products in the ways that other surveys don’t, and was a driver in the federal push to better regulate electronic cigarettes.

“There was overlap among the surveys, but each one had its own specific focus that the other ones didn’t cover,“ said Richard Miech, who leads the Michigan study.

Data modernization and predictions

Work to modernize data collection has been derailed. That includes an upgrade to a 22-year-old system that helps local public health departments track diseases and allows CDC to put together a national picture.

Another casualty was the Center for Forecasting and Outbreak Analytics, which tries to predict disease trends.

This image from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website shows a chart of measles cases in the United States as of May 1, 2025. (CDC via AP)

The center, created during the COVID-19 pandemic, was working on forecasting the current multi-state measles outbreak. That forecast hasn’t been published partly because of the layoffs, according to two CDC officials who spoke on condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to discuss it and fear retribution for speaking to the press.

Trump hasn’t always supported widespread testing of health problems.

In the spring of 2020, when COVID-19 diagnoses were exploding, the president groused that the nation’s ability to do more testing was making the U.S. look like it had a worse problem than other countries. He called testing “a double-edged sword.”

Mooney, the Johns Hopkins historian, wonders how interested the new administration is in reporting on health problems.

“You could think it’s deliberate,” he said. “If you keep people from knowing, they’re less likely to be concerned.”

The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Science and Educational Media Group and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content.

“In a time when immigrants and workers are targeted by executive orders at both the city and federal levels, it is crucial that the New York City Council do everything in our power to support street vendors alongside the brick-and-mortar business that make our commercial corridors thrive.”

Street vendors near 7 train station at Junction Boulevard in Queens last year. (Adi Talwar/City Limits)

New York City’s street vendors are an integral part of our city’s fabric, but thousands are still waiting to formally join the economy by obtaining a vending license. In a time when immigrants and workers are targeted by executive orders at both the city and federal levels, it is crucial that the New York City Council do everything in our power to support street vendors alongside the brick-and-mortar business that make our commercial corridors thrive.

At the city level, strengthening our street vending policy is one of the only ways we can make our city safer and more welcoming for immigrant New Yorkers. That’s why I’m proud to share that my bill to do just that is having a hearing in the City Council tomorrow—Tuesday, May 6. 

The reality is our street vending system is broken. Since the 1980s, New York City has issued a very small number of vending permits relative to demand, with more than 10,000 vendors on a now-closed waitlist. This proliferation of unlicensed vendors makes it more and more difficult to enforce the rules that are on the books, like health standards for food being sold, or spacing rules that keep our streets safe and clean. When permits are not made widely available, all New Yorkers suffer. 

RELATED READING: NYC Issued Over 10,000 Street Vendor Tickets, Confiscated Tons of Food in 2024

As a daughter and granddaughter of street vendors, I have made this issue a priority since taking office. My bill, Int. 431, would tackle our failed system head-on. The legislation would mandate that the city issue far more permits each year to bring existing vendors into the formal economy. It would pair that access with education so that vendors know their rights and responsibilities. In addition, my intention is to add new enforcement standards so that the rules for how a vendor can lose their license are clearly established. 

By taking a comprehensive approach to street vending, we can expand opportunity for our smallest businesses, establish a clear and fair enforcement system, and create thriving streets throughout our great city. 

If you feel strongly about the bill, I invite you to join us at tomorrow’s New York City Council hearing—Tuesday, May 6—on this critical legislation, either in person or by submitting a written testimony. As a member of the Council’s Progressive Caucus, I’m proud to have my bill as one of the Caucus’ priorities this term. With the support of and collaboration with my colleagues, I hope an amended version of Int. 431 will pass in this Council session. 

I hope you join me in raising your voice for all of our city’s workers: from the local auto shop, to your neighborhood bodega, to the street vendors striving for a better life.

Pierina Ana Sanchez is a member of the NYC Council representing the 14th District, which includes the Bronx neighborhoods of Kingsbridge, Fordham, University Heights and Mount Hope.

The post Opinion: A Balanced Approach to Street Vending appeared first on City Limits.

The head of the Justice Department’s civil rights division said Saturday that she was investigating a new policy in Hennepin County to determine whether it illegally considers race as a factor in plea deals.

Harmeet Dhillon, the assistant attorney general for civil rights, announced the investigation on social media Saturday night. A letter to the county attorney’s office in Hennepin County will seek to determine if it engages “in the illegal consideration of race in its prosecutorial decision-making.”

The inquiry stems from a policy memo the office issued days earlier, in which prosecutors were told to be aware of racial or age considerations in plea negotiations and sentencing.

“While racial identity and age are not appropriate grounds for departures, proposed resolutions should consider the person charged as a whole person, including their racial identity and age,” the memo said. “While these factors should not be controlling, they should be part of the overall analysis. Racial disparities harm our community, lead to distrust, and have a negative impact on community safety. Prosecutors should be identifying and addressing racial disparities at decision points, as appropriate.”

Advocates for sentencing reform have long argued that the criminal justice system produces significant disparities in the prison sentences given to Black defendants versus white defendants convicted of the same crimes, and the prosecutor’s memo seems designed to address that concern.

Dhillon’s letter said the federal investigation would seek to determine if the local prosecutors have created “a pattern or practice of depriving persons of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.”

Daniel Borgertpoepping, a spokesperson for the county prosecutor’s office, said the office had not received the Justice Department letter but was aware of Dhillon’s social media post.

“Our office will cooperate with any resulting investigation and we’re fully confident our policy complies with the law,” he said.

The investigation comes at tumultuous time for the civil rights division. Hundreds of lawyers and staff members have resigned in recent weeks, amid rising frustration with the reassignment or departure of most of the managers who work there, and demands for new types of investigations that have alarmed current and former lawyers at the division.

Dhillon has spoken favorably of the mass exodus, and suggested that those leaving are more supportive of “woke ideology” than President Donald Trump’s agenda.

Related Articles

Trump administration says it’ll pay immigrants in the US illegally $1,000 to leave the country

St. Paul elections: 3 mayoral candidates, citations question, Ward 4 race

In battle against transgender rights, Trump targets HUD’s housing policies

Trump directs Bureau of Prisons to rebuild and reopen Alcatraz. Can he do that?

Federal Reserve likely to defy Trump, keep rates unchanged this week

By BILL BARROW

ATLANTA (AP) — It’s what one historian calls an “elaborate, clunky machine,” one that’s been fundamental to American democracy for more than two centuries.

Related Articles

Trump administration says it’ll pay immigrants in the US illegally $1,000 to leave the country

In battle against transgender rights, Trump targets HUD’s housing policies

Trump directs Bureau of Prisons to rebuild and reopen Alcatraz. Can he do that?

Federal Reserve likely to defy Trump, keep rates unchanged this week

Trump’s trade demands go beyond tariffs to target perceived unfair practices

The principle of “checks and balances” is rooted in the Constitution’s design of a national government with three distinct, coequal branches.

President Donald Trump in his first 100 days tested that system like rarely before, signing dozens of executive orders, closing or sharply reducing government agencies funded by Congress, and denigrating judges who have issued dozens of rulings against him.

“The framers were acutely aware of competing interests, and they had great distrust of concentrated authority,” said Dartmouth College professor John Carey, an expert on American democracy. “That’s where the idea came from.”

Their road map has mostly prevented control from falling into “one person’s hands,” Carey said. But he warned that the system depends on “people operating in good faith … and not necessarily exercising power to the fullest extent imaginable.”

Here’s a look at checks and balances and previous tests across U.S. history.

A fight over Jefferson ignoring Adams’ appointments

The foundational checks-and-balances fight: President John Adams’ made last-minute appointments before he left office in 1801. His successor, Thomas Jefferson, and Secretary of State James Madison ignored them. William Marbury, an Adams justice of the peace appointee, asked the Supreme Court to compel Jefferson and Madison to honor Adams’ decisions.

Chief Justice John Marshall concluded in 1803 that the commissions became legitimate with Adams’ signature and, thus, Madison acted illegally by shelving them. Marshall, however, stopped short of ordering anything. Marbury had sued under a 1789 law that made the Supreme Court the trial court in the dispute. Marshall’s opinion voided that law because it gave justices – who almost exclusively hear appeals – more power than the Constitution afforded them.

The split decision asserted the court’s role in interpreting congressional acts -– and striking them down –- while also adjudicating executive branch actions.

Hamilton, Jackson and national banks

Congress and President George Washington chartered the First Bank of the United States in 1791. Federalists, led by Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton, favored a strong central government and wanted a national bank that could lend the government money. Anti-Federalists, led by Jefferson and Madison, wanted less centralized power and argued Congress had no authority to charter a bank. But they did not ask the courts to step in.

Andrew Jackson, the first populist president, loathed the bank, believing it to be a sop to the rich. Congress voted in 1832 to extend the charter, with provisions to mollify Jackson. The president vetoed the measure anyway, and Congress failed to muster the two-thirds majorities required by the Constitution to override him. In 1836, the Philadelphia-based bank became a private state bank.

Lincoln and due process

During the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus — a legal process that allows individuals to challenge their detention. That allowed federal authorities to arrest and hold people without granting due process. Lincoln said his maneuver might not be “strictly legal” but was a “public necessity” to protect the Union. The Supreme Court’s Roger Taney, sitting as a circuit judge, declared the suspension illegal but noted he did not have the power to enforce the opinion.

Congress ultimately sided with Lincoln through retroactive statutes. And the Supreme Court, in a separate 1862 case challenging other Lincoln actions, endorsed the president’s argument that the office comes with inherent wartime powers not expressly allowed via the Constitution or congressional act.

Reconstruction: Johnson vs. Congress

After the Civil War and Lincoln’s assassination, “Radical Republicans” in Congress wanted penalties on states that had seceded and on the Confederacy’s leaders and combatants. They also advocated Reconstruction programs that enfranchised and elevated formerly enslaved people (the men, at least). President Andrew Johnson, a Tennessean, was more lenient on Confederates and harsher to formerly enslaved people. Congress, with appropriations power, established the Freedmen’s Bureau to assist newly freed Black Americans. Johnson, with pardon power, repatriated former Confederates. He also limited Freedmen’s Bureau authority to seize Confederates’ assets.

Spoils system vs. civil service

For a century, nearly all federal jobs were executive branch political appointments: revolving doors after every presidential transition. In 1883, Congress stepped in with the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act. Changes started with some posts being filled through examinations rather than political favor. Congress added to the law over generations, developing the civil service system that Trump is now seeking to dismantle by reclassifying tens of thousands of government employees. His aim is to turn civil servants into political appointees or other at-will workers who are more easily dismissed from their jobs.

Wilson’s League of Nations

After World War I, the Treaty of Versailles called for an international body to bring countries together to discuss global affairs and prevent war. President Woodrow Wilson advocated for the League of Nations. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman, Republican Henry Cabot Lodge of Massachusetts, brought the treaty to the Senate in 1919 with amendments to limit the League of Nation’s influence. Wilson opposed the caveats, and the Senate fell short of the two-thirds majority needed to ratify the treaty and join the League. After World War II, the U.S. took a lead role, with Senate support, in establishing the United Nations and the NATO alliance.

FILE – President Franklin D. Roosevelt delivers his first radio “Fireside Chat” in Washington in March 12, 1933. (AP Photo, File)

FDR and court packing

Franklin D. Roosevelt met the Great Depression with large federal programs and aggressive regulatory actions, much of it approved by Democratic majorities in Congress. A conservative Supreme Court struck down some of the New Deal legislation as beyond the scope of congressional power. Roosevelt answered by proposing to expand the nine-seat court and pressuring aging justices to retire. The president’s critics dubbed it “a court-packing scheme.” He disputed the charge. But not even the Democratic Congress seriously entertained his idea.

Presidential term limits

Roosevelt ignored the unwritten rule, established by Washington, that a president serves no more than two terms. He won third and fourth terms during World War II, rankling even some of his allies. Soon after his death, a bipartisan coalition pushed the 22nd Amendment that limits presidents to being elected twice. Trump has talked about seeking a third term despite this constitutional prohibition.

FILE – President Richard Nixon sits in his White House office, Aug. 16, 1973, as he poses for pictures after delivering a nationwide television address dealing with Watergate. (AP Photo, File)

Nixon and Watergate

The Washington Post and other media exposed ties between President Richard Nixon’s associates and a break-in at Democratic Party headquarters at the Watergate Hotel during the 1972 campaign. By summer 1974, the story ballooned into congressional hearings, court fights and plans for impeachment proceedings. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously against Nixon in his assertion that executive privilege allowed him not to turn over potential evidence of his and top aides’ roles in the cover-up — including recordings of private Oval Office conversations. Nixon resigned after a delegation of his fellow Republicans told him that Congress was poised to remove him from office.

FILE – President Kennedy sits in his now famous rocking chair while talking with Nguyen Dinh Thuan, a top South Viet Nam official, at the White House in Washington on June 14, 1961. (AP Photo/Henry Burroughs, File)

Leaving Vietnam

Presidents from John F. Kennedy through Nixon ratcheted up U.S. involvement in Southeast Asia during the Cold War. But Congress never declared war in Vietnam. A 1973 deal, under Nixon, ended official American military involvement. But complete U.S. withdrawal didn’t occur until more than two years later – a period during which Congress reduced funding for South Vietnam’s democratic government. Congress did not cut off all money for Saigon, as some conservatives later claimed. But lawmakers refused to rubber-stamp larger administration requests, asserting a congressional check on the president’s military and foreign policy agenda.

FILE – President Barack Obama is applauded after signing the Affordable Care Act into law in the East Room of the White House in Washington, March 23, 2010. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak, File)

The Affordable Care Act

A Democratic-controlled Congress overhauled the nation’s health insurance system in 2010. The Affordable Care Act, in part, tried to require states to expand the Medicaid program that covers millions of children, disabled people and some low-income adults. But the Supreme Court ruled in 2012 that Congress and President Barack Obama could not compel states to expand the program by threatening to withhold other federal money already obligated to the states under previous federal law. The court on multiple occasions has upheld other portions of the law. Republicans, even when they have controlled the White House and Capitol Hill, have been unable to repeal the act.