The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) has lost several multimillion-dollar federal grants after publicly criticising the health policies of U.S. Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., triggering a fresh controversy over the politicisation of public health funding and its potential impact on children’s healthcare in the United States.
According to multiple reports, including coverage by The Washington Post, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has terminated seven federal grants awarded to the AAP. The decision was taken without prior notice, affecting projects that focus on some of the most sensitive and critical areas of child health, including early identification of autism, prevention of fetal alcohol spectrum disorders, sudden infant death reduction, mental health, adolescent health, and access to healthcare in rural communities.
In a statement to The Guardian, AAP Chief Executive Officer Mark Del Monte confirmed the abrupt nature of the decision.
“AAP learned this week that seven grants to AAP under the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services are being terminated,” Del Monte said.
“This vital work spanned multiple child health priorities, including reducing sudden infant death, rural access to health care, mental health, adolescent health, supporting children with birth defects, early identification of autism, and prevention of fetal alcohol spectrum disorders, among other topics.”
Del Monte warned that the funding withdrawal could have immediate and far-reaching consequences.
“The sudden withdrawal of these funds will directly impact and potentially harm infants, children, youth, and their families in communities across the United States,” he said, adding that the academy is “exploring all available options, including legal recourse.”
Government Cites ‘Misalignment With Priorities’
An HHS spokesperson, Andrew Nixon, told The Washington Post that the grants were terminated because they no longer aligned with departmental priorities. According to administration officials cited in the report, the decision followed concerns that AAP materials used what the department described as “identity-based language”, including references to racial disparities and terms such as “pregnant people.”
One termination letter related to a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) grant addressing birth defects and infant disorders reportedly stated that the language used in project materials was “not aligned with current CDC and HHS priorities.”
“These elements are not incidental; they are woven through the title, narrative and work plans of your organization’s award project and define your organization’s project’s objective framework,” wrote Jamie Legier, director of the CDC’s Office of Grants Services, according to the report.
“As such, your organization’s activities under [the award] are no longer in alignment with the stated HHS and CDC priority areas.”
The Guardian has contacted HHS for further comment.
Tensions Escalate Over Vaccine Policy
The funding cuts come amid escalating tensions between the AAP and Secretary Kennedy, particularly over Covid-19 vaccination policy. Earlier this year, Kennedy announced that Covid-19 vaccines would no longer be included in the CDC’s recommended immunization schedule for healthy children and pregnant women, breaking with longstanding public health guidance.
In response, the AAP issued its own vaccine recommendations, diverging from the federal stance. AAP President Dr. Susan J. Kressly defended the move in June, saying:
“We won’t lend our name or our expertise to a system that is being politicized at the expense of children’s health.”
Kennedy responded sharply on social media platform X (formerly Twitter), questioning whether the academy’s guidance reflected public health interests or commercial influence.
“Do AAP’s recommendations reflect public health interest, or are they just a pay-to-play scheme to promote the commercial ambitions of AAP’s Big Pharma benefactors?” Kennedy wrote.
Legal Challenge and Broader Fallout
The dispute has since moved into the courts. The AAP, alongside other major medical associations, has filed a lawsuit against HHS, challenging the administration’s changes to Covid-19 vaccine policy.
In support of the lawsuit, Defend Public Health (DPH)—a network of health workers and researchers—filed an amicus brief warning that the revised guidance could have serious consequences.
“First, this downgrade immediately introduced significant uncertainty and complexity to the process of administering Covid-19 vaccines in pharmacy settings,” the group argued.
“Second, pregnant patients and children—populations at heightened risk from many infectious diseases—are most affected by these disruptions. Third, reduced vaccination coverage burdens hospitals and the healthcare workforce.”
Concerns Over Precedent
Public health experts say the termination of grants raises broader questions about whether scientific and medical organisations are being penalised for dissenting from government policy.
“These grants are not abstract policy tools,” said a senior public health researcher familiar with federal funding processes. “They fund on-the-ground programs that save lives and improve early diagnosis. Cutting them sends a chilling signal to the entire medical community.”
With billions of dollars in federal health funding distributed each year, critics warn that linking grants to ideological alignment rather than outcomes could undermine trust in public health institutions.
As the AAP weighs legal options and the lawsuit over vaccine policy proceeds, the episode underscores a growing rift between the nation’s leading pediatric organisation and the federal government—one that may ultimately be felt most acutely by children and families who rely on these programs.
