Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
What major programs received increased funding at the CDC in 2025?
Executive Summary
The FY2025 CDC budget materials and related agency priorities identify multiple programs that received explicit funding increases, most prominently Cancer Prevention and Control (+$90 million), Youth and Community Violence Prevention (+$100 million), Immunization and Other Respiratory Diseases (+$50 million), Public Health Data Modernization (+$49.6 million), and Suicide Prevention (+$38 million), along with smaller boosts for Antibiotic Resistance, Wastewater Surveillance, and Tobacco efforts (each noted as $10–20 million) [1]. These allocations reflect a clear emphasis on strengthening infectious-disease readiness, data and laboratory capacity, and violence and mental-health prevention, but contemporaneous appropriations and advocacy documents show disagreement about scale and priorities, with later FY26 proposals and some advocacy groups flagging cuts or calling for substantially larger investments in areas such as immunization, overdose prevention, and data modernization [2] [3] [4].
1. What the FY2025 budget actually lists as winners — clear increases across prevention and detection
The CDC’s FY2025 budget overview and supporting materials enumerate discrete dollar increases for several major program areas, with the biggest single line increases identified for Youth and Community Violence Prevention (+$100 million) and Cancer Prevention and Control (+$90 million), alongside notable boosts to Immunization and Other Respiratory Diseases (+$50 million) and Public Health Data Modernization (+$49.6 million). The facts in these documents indicate targeted funding to expand surveillance, vaccination infrastructure, and prevention interventions, and smaller explicit increases for Suicide Prevention (+$38 million), Adverse Childhood Experiences (+$21 million), Wastewater Surveillance (+$20 million), and Antibiotic Resistance and Tobacco programs (~$10 million each) [1]. These allocations signal a policy focus on both infectious disease detection and chronic disease/behavioral-health prevention, consistent with agency priorities published for 2025 [5].
2. Agency priorities line up with funding emphasis on detection, labs, and surveillance
The National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases and other CDC priority statements for 2025 reinforce the budget’s stated direction by listing emerging infectious disease readiness, laboratory capacity, genomic detection, antimicrobial resistance, and creation of a sustainable wastewater surveillance network as top priorities. Those priority documents describe programmatic investments—such as the Global Antimicrobial Resistance Laboratory and traveler-based genomic surveillance—that correspond with the budget increases for antimicrobial resistance detection and wastewater systems, even where specific dollar figures are not repeated in the priority text [5]. The alignment between budget line increases and stated scientific readiness goals supports the interpretation that surveillance and laboratory modernization were central aims of FY2025 appropriations.
3. Advocacy groups say more was needed — competing requests and different measurements of “increase”
Local health and big-city coalitions pushed for substantially larger increases than the enacted FY2025 lines, asking for much bigger, sustained funding levels across immunization, epidemiology and laboratory capacity, data modernization, and opioid/overdose prevention—requests that far exceed the amounts the CDC documents list (for example, $1.1 billion for the National Immunization Program and $713 million for opioid overdose prevention were among advocacy asks) [3]. These advocacy positions reflect a different policy perspective that measures adequacy against long-term capacity needs rather than incremental year-to-year increases, and they explicitly urge directing funds to local health departments. The advocacy documents reveal an agenda focused on building baseline public-health capacity rather than one-time program boosts [3].
4. Conflicting signals from later appropriations and FY26 proposals — cuts versus protections
While FY2025 materials show targeted increases, later appropriations summaries and House proposals for FY26 present conflicting pictures, with some congressional spending proposals seeking to preserve certain program lines and others proposing steep reductions or restructurings. The Senate appropriations summary for FY26 authorized modest increases or level funding for several readiness programs and rejected administration proposals to eliminate programs, while House proposals and other analyses reported potential significant cuts in some scenarios [2] [4]. This divergence highlights that program funding reported as “increased” for FY2025 lived within a broader and unstable appropriations debate, meaning year-to-year increases could be offset by subsequent proposals or rescissions in later fiscal planning.
5. What’s omitted and why the context matters for assessing impact
The CDC’s FY2025 fact sheets and priority statements provide explicit line-item increases but omit granular details on program implementation, duration, and distribution to state and local partners, which prevents assessing whether increases translate into sustained capacity at the local level. The large gap between agency-enumerated increases and advocacy group requests shows the difference between nominal budget growth and perceived adequacy, and subsequent FY26 legislative activity demonstrates how volatile federal funding can be. Evaluations of impact therefore require tracking both appropriated dollar amounts and downstream allocations, program timelines, and enacted law versus proposed budgets to determine whether the FY2025 increases materially strengthen public-health systems [1] [3] [2].