This week’s policy round-up tracks escalating federal actions that undermine equity, access, and civil rights—from restricting COVID vaccine eligibility and destabilizing public health leadership, to cutting reproductive care and reshaping education and immigration systems in ways that harm vulnerable communities.
Public Trust Undermined: Health & Human Rights
Just weeks after being confirmed, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Director Susan Monarez was abruptly fired by the Health and Human Services Secretary on August 27. Monarez is refusing to step down, citing her status as a Senate-confirmed presidential appointee. Her attempted removal triggered a wave of resignations from senior CDC leaders—including those overseeing immunization, infectious diseases, and public health data—deepening instability at the agency. These resignations follow mass layoffs, abrupt vaccine policy changes, and a deadly shooting at CDC headquarters by an anti-vaccine conspiracist—an incident met with muted response from the administration. Together, these events pose severe threats to public health and the Federal Government’s ability to respond to public health emergencies.
On August 27, the FDA approved updated COVID-19 vaccines from Pfizer, Moderna, and Novavax. However, many people will now have to self-report having an eligible “condition” to qualify. The new rules state:
- Only people 65+ automatically qualify.
- Others must have a high-risk condition like asthma, obesity, a history of smoking, diabetes, pregnancy, or immunosuppression.
- Children under 5 can only get Moderna’s vaccine, and only if high-risk. Pfizer is no longer authorized for this age group.
- Novavax is approved for ages 12+ with qualifying conditions.
Healthy people under 65 are excluded from automatic access, but most can qualify by self-reporting an eligible condition. Those not covered may face costs of $150–$200 per dose or rely on off-label access. This is a sharp shift from previous years, when vaccines were recommended for everyone 6 months and older, and contradicts mainstream public health guidance. A further complication is that pharmacies in some states cannot administer the vaccines until CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices also approves them—something delayed at least three weeks since the committee is not operating normally.
Meanwhile, reproductive healthcare access is also under attack. A federal judge ruled that Maine Family Planning—a network of clinics serving low-income patients—will not receive Medicaid funding while its lawsuit against the Federal Government proceeds. The lawsuit challenges a provision in Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill” that blocks federal Medicaid funds from organizations primarily engaged in family planning, even if most of their services—like contraception, cancer screenings, and primary care—are unrelated to abortion.
As a result, Maine Family Planning may be forced to scale back or halt services for thousands of patients—jeopardizing access to essential care for low-income women and families. If the decision is upheld nationwide, it could restrict reproductive health services for hundreds of thousands—particularly those who rely on clinics for contraception, screenings, and preventive care. Such cuts risk deepening health disparities, especially in poor, rural, and minority communities already facing limited access to care. This ruling also signals growing federal interference in local health systems, raising alarms about politically driven restrictions on care in already underserved areas.
Curriculum Under Control: Education & Equity
The Justice Department has declined to defend a $350 million grant program for Hispanic-Serving Institutions—colleges where over 25% of students identify as Hispanic—calling it unconstitutional. The move follows a lawsuit by Tennessee and Students for Fair Admissions, echoing the Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling against race-conscious policies. Though the program is codified in law—meaning it cannot be dismantled without a court ruling or congressional action—its future is uncertain. A loss could jeopardize similar funding for institutions serving Black, Asian American, Native American, and Pacific Islander students. Cutting this support would roll back access to higher education for Latino and low-income students.
In a related battle over K-12 education funding, after pressure from California and 22 other states, the Trump administration reversed course and restored $6.8 billion in education funding that had been frozen without notice, impacting programs like after-school services, teacher training, and support for English learners. The freeze violated federal law and left districts scrambling, especially those serving low-income students.
Yet even as some funds return, others are being cut. The administration has canceled over $1 billion in competitive education grants years ahead of schedule, affecting programs tied to desegregation, disability services, and teacher preparation. Officials cite conflicts with executive orders targeting diversity efforts, while reduced staffing at the Department of Education adds to delays and uncertainty. These cuts hit vulnerable communities hardest, undermining trust and stability in public education.
Federal pressure is also reshaping curriculum content. Forty-six states and territories have been ordered to strip references to transgender people and gender identity from sex education curricula or risk losing federal funding from the Personal Responsibility Education Program. California has already lost $12 million for refusing to comply. This directive expands federal control over local education, allowing political agendas to override evidence-based public health guidance. If upheld, it could set a precedent for excluding entire communities or topics from federally funded programs, weakening both local decision-making and inclusive education.
Barriers to Belonging: Immigration & Justice
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has issued new grant guidelines barring federally funded aid groups from serving undocumented immigrants. Organizations receiving DHS or FEMA funds must now cooperate with immigration enforcement, share individuals’ status, and provide access to detainees—terms many nonprofits say conflict with local laws and core values.
Faith-based and humanitarian groups warn that the policy could violate religious freedoms and force them to choose between funding and their mission. These policies can also create a chilling effect, deterring undocumented and mixed-status families from seeking life-saving aid during disasters. The result: fewer protections for the most vulnerable, and deeper inequities in emergency response.
Meanwhile, in the courts, a federal judge has dismissed the Trump administration’s lawsuit against all 15 federal judges in Maryland, calling the case “potentially calamitous” and a threat to judicial independence. The lawsuit stemmed from a temporary order blocking the immediate deportation of certain immigrants. The government argued the order interfered with presidential enforcement powers, but in an unprecedented move, the administration sued all of the court’s judges instead of filing an appeal.
The ruling reinforces the judiciary’s role in checking executive authority and affirms constitutional limits on attempts to collectively challenge judges. While the decision may be appealed, it sets a strong precedent for protecting the balance of powers amid ongoing tensions over immigration policy.
The administration is increasingly citing crime as a means to expand federal authority over local governance. Federal funding is now being used as leverage to discourage states from adopting cashless bail policies—systems that assess a defendant’s pretrial risk of flight or danger rather than their ability to pay. A new executive order threatens to withhold support from jurisdictions that use cashless bail policies, despite growing evidence that cash bail disproportionately harms poor and marginalized communities. By tying freedom to financial means, the order reinforces a system where poverty—not public safety—determines who stays behind bars.
In a separate and more aggressive move, the federal government has escalated its takeover of Washington, D.C., now in effect for several weeks. A new executive order specifically targets the city’s cashless bail policy, requiring federal agencies to detain suspects regardless of local pretrial release rules. The city now has thousands of federal troops deployed, checkpoints restricting movement, allegations of racial profiling, and detentions of allegedly undocumented immigrants who have not been convicted of a crime. These actions use public safety as justification to expand executive power to override local laws enacted by lawmakers representing the predominantly African American city’s voters.
In another move against First Amendment rights, a new executive order seeks to criminalize all flag burning, despite the Supreme Court ruling that it is protected speech. The order directs the Department of Justice to use multiple enforcement tools against individuals who burn the flag and, in addition, invokes immigration powers to target non-citizens. This marks the administration’s latest attempt to restrict free expression, even though the Constitution prohibits the federal government from limiting speech for any person regardless of citizenship.