New Issue: Science’s Impossible Questions. Read Now

After Outcry, White House Budget Preserves Funds to Fight Opioid Epidemic

The president's 2018 proposal offers relatively small trims to drug control office

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

After an outcry, the Trump administration has rolled back a proposed gutting of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, instead asking for relatively small trims to the office and largely preserving two main grant programs.

President Trump’s 2018 budget—released Tuesday—is just a proposal; Congress actually allocates government spending.

Still, the budget outlines the administration’s priorities, and an email leaked earlier this month showed that Trump was considering cutting the office’s $364 million budget by 95 percent. Those cuts would have eliminated two major grant programs the office coordinates: the drug-free communities program, which helps build coalitions to decrease substance use, and the high-intensity drug-trafficking area programs, which helps state and local law enforcement agencies fight drug trafficking.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Instead, the Trump administration is proposing allocating $244 million to the drug-trafficking program, down from $247 million in the 2017 budget. For the communities program, the administration wants to spend $92 million, compared to $95 million last year.

For the operations of the office, Trump is proposing a $2 million trim, from $20 million to $18 million.

Politico first reported the revised plans for the office’s budget.

After the potential cuts were disclosed, Trump administration officials, while noting that the proposal was just preliminary, defended any spending cuts by saying that the office duplicated work done by other federal agencies. But supporters of the office — which is led by an official commonly called the “drug czar”—argued that by working across the government, it actually ensures a more coordinated effort among the agencies.

The office in recent years has been helping lead the government’s fight against the growing opioid epidemic, which Trump has said is a priority of his. This month, White House counselor Kellyanne Conway and Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price traveled around the country on a listening tour related to the crisis, and faced questions about whether cutting the drug control office betrayed the administration’s vow to tackle opioid addiction.

Officials from both parties, especially people who had worked in the office in previous administrations and those from states hard hit by the opioid epidemic, had criticized gutting the agency as short-sighted.

The Trump administration has not yet nominated a director for the office.

Republished with permission from STAT. This article originally appeared on May 23, 2017

STAT delivers fast, deep, and tough-minded journalism. We take you inside science labs and hospitals, biotech boardrooms, and political backrooms. We dissect crucial discoveries. We examine controversies and puncture hype. We hold individuals and institutions accountable. We introduce you to the power brokers and personalities who are driving a revolution in human health. These are the stories that matter to us all.

More by STAT

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe