May 31, 2025 Update: The White House released a more detailed budget. It still contains less information than normal but helped fill in some of the gaps. For HUD, the proposal asks Congress for no new appropriations in FY26 calls with plans to use funds from prior years to award new grants totaling $425 million in FY25 and $267 million in FY26 (see p. 499 of the PDF).
The White House asks Congress to consolidate environmental and worker health programs in CDC and NIH (including NIEHS and NIOSH) into a new “Administration for a Healthy America” (AHA) (p. 331 of the PDF). The Environmental Health area will have $779 million (of AHA’s $2,863 billion). There is no mention of lead or asthma in the entire AHA section, which is not promising for CLPPP grants that are so essential to states (see below).
Regarding EPA, the White House proposes deep cuts. There is no mention of the grants to states for lead-based paint efforts. This suggests that they will be eliminated.
Now it is up to Congress to decide.
What Happened
On May 2, the White House released its summary of its discretionary budget request for FY 2026, proposing deep cuts to lead programs in EPA, CDC, and HUD.
- CDC: The White House proposes 40% cuts to CDC funding, including eliminating the National Center for Environmental Health along with most work unrelated to emerging or infectious disease (page 13). Given the depth of the cuts, they likely include eliminating the $51 million/year for the Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Program (CLPPP) that support grants to states and municipalities, serving as the backbone for federal and state efforts to track blood lead monitoring trends and spot emerging threats. In April, HHS cut 3,500 CDC staff, including all 26 CLPPP staff, but a judge stayed most of those CDC cuts (as well as other agencies).
- HUD: The White House proposes saving $296 million by cutting HUD’s lead-hazard control and healthy homes grants for FY26 so the unobligated funds from FY24 and FY25 are “depleted prior to receiving further appropriations,” suggesting that all FY26 would be cut (page 28). However, FY25 funding was $345 million, so the numbers don’t add up.
- EPA: The White House proposes eliminating all $1.1 billion/year for the drinking water state revolving fund and cutting 16 of 20 types of categorical grants that received $1 billion/year (page 15). This likely includes $16 million/year in grants to states that have long-supported lead-based paint certification, education, and enforcement efforts.
The White House’s budget is too vague to address the impacts on other agencies, such as FDA, CMS, CPSC, OSHA, and CPSC. It is also unclear how the 10-year budget reconciliation bill that passed the House on May 20 and its being considered by the Senate will impact FY26 appropriations.
To track Congress’ progress on FY26 appropriations and what happened in FY25, go to https://www.congress.gov/crs-appropriations-status-table.
Why It Matters
CDC, HUD, and EPA each have critical, yet distinct, roles in lead poisoning prevention.
- CDC provides the backbone for federal and state efforts to track blood lead monitoring trends, spot emerging threats, educate the healthcare community and the public, and support case management for children with elevated blood lead levels. It funds 48 of 50 states.
- HUD conducts essential research on the most effective techniques to reduce lead-based paint hazards and funds an extensive network of state and local agencies to remediate those hazards in privately-owned homes that serve low-income families to keep rents affordable.
- EPA, through categorical grants to states, helps ensure communities have a workforce available to conduct lead-based paint inspections, risk assessments, and abatement work in a professional manner that adequately protects families. It also funds drinking water infrastructure projects that reduce lead in drinking water as well as preventing further lead contamination of the environment and ensuring old industrial operations are cleaned up.
Our Take
Budgets reflect priorities. The White House’s proposed deep budget cuts to lead programs at CDC, EPA, and HUD are shocking indicators of its priorities. The proposal reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the challenge posed by lead and the critical role each agency has in working together to protect children.
Lead is not going away. It continues to be in our homes, our food and water, our neighborhoods, and our communities. We are at risk. And unless we are vigilant, it will show up again in our food (e.g. applesauce pouches in 2024), water (e.g. Washington, D.C., in 2005, Flint and Sebring, Michigan, in 2014 and Jackson, Mississippi, and University Park, Illinois, in 2023) and consumer products (leaded jewelry in 2006).
We appear to be forgetting the lesson from 2012 when the Obama Administration and Congress eliminated CDC’s CLPPP grants to states, blinding many states to emerging problems, such as Flint two years after the federal cuts. It took a decade to fully restore that funding, and many states struggled to regain their momentum.
We recognize the states can and should be helping to fund these efforts. However, that is not realistic without a thoughtful transition, sufficient notice, and a plan to protect children if a state does not step up. None of that has happened.
Fortunately, Congress usually treats the president’s proposed budget as a suggestion. However, unlike in the past, this Administration is taking actions to implement many of the changes without waiting for Congress.
From 2016 to 2022, Congress made lead poisoning prevention a bipartisan priority, dramatically increasing funding levels at HUD and CDC and providing EPA with drinking water infrastructure funds dedicated to replacing lead pipes. While the HUD and CDC investments leveled off in 2023–25, the programs were just beginning to build the infrastructure to support lead poisoning prevention and healthy homes programs. The cuts, if enacted, will undermine HUD’s momentum and potentially break the back of state programs supported by CDC.
Next Steps
The detailed budget justification from the White House and agencies is already behind schedule. After it is released, we will know more about the impact on lead programs. However, Congress need not wait for the Administration and has deadlines to meet on FY26 appropriations. Let’s hope the bipartisan approach that shaped past budget appropriations, especially in the Senate, will hold. We will know more when the House and Senate committees introduce and consider the federal appropriations during June and July. That’s coming up fast!