Illinois Blames Trump Administration for $100M in Public Health Cuts

State says funding reductions will harm critical programs statewide

Published on Feb. 12, 2026

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

The Illinois Department of Public Health (IDPH) has warned that $100 million in federal budget cuts by the Trump administration will impact numerous health programs across the state, including those that provide support to local health departments, decrease HIV rates, and promote injury and violence prevention. The state's Attorney General has joined counterparts in California, Colorado, and Minnesota in filing a lawsuit against the White House, claiming the funding cuts were done unlawfully and are based on political disagreements with Democratic leadership in those states.

Why it matters

These cuts to public health funding come at a critical time and could force states to lay off trained public health professionals, weakening their ability to protect residents' health and safety. The lawsuit argues the Trump administration's actions are politically motivated and illegal, undermining the public health infrastructure that communities rely on.

The details

The $100 million in IDPH budget cuts will affect a range of programs, including those that provide support to local health departments, decrease HIV rates, and promote injury and violence prevention. State officials say these cuts "target programs that benefit the health of all Illinois residents" and will "severely harm" crucial public health efforts.

  • On February 11, 2026, Illinois' Attorney General Kwame Raoul, along with AGs from California, Colorado and Minnesota, filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration.
  • The White House announced the slashing of more than $600 million in Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) grants across the four states.

The players

Illinois Department of Public Health (IDPH)

The state agency responsible for protecting public health and safety in Illinois.

Kwame Raoul

The Attorney General of Illinois who joined counterparts in other states to file a lawsuit against the Trump administration over the public health funding cuts.

JB Pritzker

The Governor of Illinois, who criticized the Trump administration's actions as an attempt to "harm states he does not like" and vowed that Illinois "will not stand by idly" as the funding is canceled.

Donald Trump

The former President of the United States whose administration is accused of unlawfully cutting public health funding to Democratic-led states.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)

The federal agency whose grants to several states were slashed by the Trump administration.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“These cuts target programs that benefit the health of all Illinois residents. These actions will severely harm IDPH programs that provide critical support to local health departments, decrease HIV rates, and promote injury and violence prevention, among other efforts. This Congress-allocated funding should be preserved to continue supporting work happening at the state and local level to keep Illinois protected, safe, and healthy.”

— Dr. Sameer Vohra, Director, Illinois Department of Public Health (wifr.com)

“Rather than making life easier and more affordable for our families, Donald Trump is stripping critical public health funding with the singular goal of harming states he does not like. It's a slap in the face to the people of Illinois and the public health leaders who have stepped up as his HHS takes a sledgehammer to public health infrastructure. Illinois will not stand by idly as Trump illegally cancels the Congressionally-allocated funding we are owed.”

— Governor JB Pritzker (wifr.com)

What’s next

The lawsuit filed by the four states' Attorneys General will determine whether the Trump administration's cuts to public health funding were lawful and politically motivated.

The takeaway

This case highlights the ongoing political battles over public health funding and the potential consequences for residents when such funding is reduced or eliminated, even during a time of heightened need. It underscores the importance of preserving critical public health infrastructure and programs, regardless of partisan affiliations.