In recent years, calls to defund or significantly reduce the budget of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have gained traction among certain Republican factions, especially in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. Prominent voices within Congress, aligned with former President Donald Trump, have intensified these efforts, advocating for a rethinking of the CDC’s role and funding in public health. The July 23, 2024, House Energy and Commerce Health Subcommittee hearing with the CDC Center Directors illustrated the partisan divide, with Republicans doubling down on their concerns that the agency overstepped its bounds during the pandemic and is rife with inefficiencies, and committee Democrats, led by Ranking Member Frank Pallone, defending the role of the agency in responding to global health emergencies. He blasted Republicans for reporting out a partisan Labor-HHS Appropriations bill that reduces the CDC budget by $1.8 billion.
The following details the arguments for and against maintaining and increasing the budget for the CDC.
Republican Arguments for Defunding the CDC
- Government Overreach
Many Republicans have argued that the CDC overstepped its authority during the COVID-19 pandemic when the agency enforced policies such as mask mandates and lockdowns. They assert that these decisions should be left to individuals or local governments rather than dictated by federal agencies.
Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) has made calls for defunding the CDC due to its overreach during the pandemic. He has criticized the agency for infringing on individual freedoms through mandates on masks and vaccines, suggesting that such decisions should not come from a federal entity.
During the July 23, 2024, House Energy and Commerce Committee hearing, Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) expressed serious concerns over the CDC’s actions during the pandemic. McMorris Rodgers questioned the agency’s authority to impose mandates restricting personal freedoms, echoing the broader Republican argument against what they see as federal overreach in health policy.
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) has taken her opposition to the CDC further by introducing legislation in 2021 to defund the agency, citing violations of constitutional rights during the pandemic. She maintains this stance, calling for dismantling the CDC to prevent future government overreach.
- Inefficiency and Bureaucracy
Several Republicans have argued that the CDC has become inefficient, suggesting that reducing the agency’s budget would force the agency to focus on its core mission rather than expand into what they view as politically charged areas, like gain of function research.
Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) has prioritized advocating for reducing the size of federal agencies, including the CDC, citing inefficiency. He criticized the CDC during the COVID-19 response, suggesting in 2023 that its bloated bureaucracy prevented the agency from functioning effectively and that budget cuts going forward would help streamline its operations.
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) echoed similar concerns, arguing that unchecked funding leads to inefficiency within large federal agencies like the CDC. In early 2023, Cruz called for greater oversight and budget reductions, noting the CDC’s inconsistent messaging during the pandemic as evidence of poor management.
- Economic and Social Impact
Many Republicans contend that the CDC’s recommendations during the pandemic, such as business closures and stay-at-home orders, caused unnecessary economic harm. They argue that defunding the CDC would prevent similar policies from being implemented in the future.
In 2023, Sen. Cruz continued to push for budget reductions in the CDC, claiming that the agency’s pandemic policies contributed to significant economic damage, particularly for small businesses. He argued that budget cuts would reduce the CDC’s ability to impose economically harmful measures in the future.
Sen. Paul has similarly highlighted the negative economic impact of the CDC’s pandemic restrictions. In 2023, he renewed calls for defunding the agency, suggesting that this would prevent the CDC from causing similar disruptions in future health emergencies.
Democratic Arguments for Maintaining or Increasing CDC Funding
In contrast, some Democrats argue that defunding the CDC would severely weaken the country’s ability to respond to health emergencies. They contend that the agency’s funding should be maintained or increased to ensure the U.S. remains prepared for future health crises.
- Public Health Protection
Democrats consistently argue that the CDC plays a crucial role in protecting public health, particularly in managing pandemics and responding to bioterrorism threats. They contend that defunding the agency would leave the U.S. vulnerable to future health crises.
Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) has consistently advocated increasing the CDC’s budget. In 2023, she argued that cutting the agency’s funding would leave the country unprepared for future public health emergencies, putting lives at risk.
- Research and Innovation
Democrats emphasize that the CDC is a leader in public health research, including vaccine development and disease surveillance. They argue that defunding the agency would stifle innovation and slow the development of treatments for infectious and chronic diseases.
Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT), Ranking Member of the House Appropriations Committee, has consistently highlighted the CDC’s critical role in public health research. In 2023, she argued that reducing the CDC’s budget would halt progress on key research initiatives essential for preventing future outbreaks.
- Preventing Future Crises
Democrats argue that investing in the CDC now will help prevent costly public health crises in the future. They contend that cutting its budget would increase the likelihood of more frequent and severe outbreaks.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) has long argued that public health funding is critical for crisis prevention. In 2023, she warned that defunding the CDC would undermine the country’s ability to detect and respond to emerging health threats.
- Economic and Social Stability
Democrats argue that a well-funded CDC protects public health and supports economic stability. By preventing widespread disease outbreaks, the CDC helps avoid the economic disruption seen during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Ranking Member Frank Pallone (D-NJ) of the House Energy and Commerce Committee has stressed the economic benefits of a robust public health infrastructure. He has pointed out that the CDC’s work in preventing diseases and managing outbreaks keeps people in the workforce and reduces health care costs. He has consistently supported increased funding for the CDC, warning that cuts would put public health and the economy at risk.
Conclusion
The debate over CDC funding reflects deep partisan divisions. On one side, Republicans like Sen. Paul and Rep. Taylor Greene argue that the CDC has overreached, is inefficient, and should have its budget reduced or eliminated.
On the other side, Democrats like Sen. Murray, Rep. DeLauro, and Rep. Pallone argue that the CDC is essential for public health protection, research, and crisis prevention. They warn that defunding the agency would leave the country unprepared for future health emergencies, threatening public safety and national security.
Further partisan disagreement over CDC funding is likely to continue into the lame duck session and efforts to fund the government in FY 2025.
