Last week, the funding for thousands of programs offering mental health and substance use services was halted when the Trump administration suddenly cut $1.9 billion in funding to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). Approximately 2,800 grantee organizations were impacted. But the Trump administration quickly reversed course, reinstating the funding just a day later.
For The Guardian, Melody Schreiber writes that these programs are now feeling “whiplash.”
MELODY SCHREIBER; [email protected]
Schreiber is a freelance health and science journalist.
Schreiber told the Institute for Public Accuracy: “When the [letter announcing cuts to SAMHSA] went out, there had been no sign it was coming. It was really unexpected. These programs had already complied with previous government orders like the orders on DEI. They were scrambling to change their work when those orders came out. At this point, they were in compliance and there was no news of further cuts. They underwent cuts of about the same amount last year, as well as staff layoffs.”
Although the funding was quickly reinstated, the change “signals that this funding is in jeopardy,” says Schreiber. “These programs are looking for alternate funding to shore things up. Now they are wondering if this is going to happen next week or next month. Is this a program that is going to be terminated when it ends? They’re upset and uncertain. They have done everything to stay in compliance. They’re offering services that people desperately need. To say their work is not aligned with the administration is a gut punch.
“The U.S. government has shown itself to be an unreliable partner. They had to fire staff and close doors for a day. This shows that [this funding] is not something [these programs] can count on. They feel that this work is often not appreciated by the public and now it is not appreciated by the government either.
“Historically, there has been a big push to make the government smaller and to partner with organizations, which now allows the government to make the footprint a lot smaller and cancel outside contracts. It’s a lot easier to end these programs than to end a full government program. Sources also told me that because budget negotiations are happening on the Hill, they saw it as a political play by administration officials to say that they’re in control of the funding. They are going against the wishes of Congress to slash this funding, even though Congress allocated the funds this way.”