New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Trump Administration Reinstates $2 Billion in Mental Health and Addiction Funding

Experts have said that if previously reported cuts to federal grants had come to pass, they would have exacerbated the U.S.’s addiction crisis

People holding hands

dragana991 via Getty Images

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

As of January 15, the Trump administration has walked back a plan to slash U.S. federal funding for mental health and addiction programs, a move that experts have said would have exacerbate the country’s already acute drug crisis.

The loss would have totaled some $2 billion in grants from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), NPR reported, citing unnamed sources. The number of grants targeted may have been as high as 2,800, according to STAT.

Before the cuts were rolled back, Daniel Ciccarone, a professor of addiction medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, told Scientific American that “this is going to cost American lives, no doubt.”


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.


“It’s an utter shame, given the fact that overdoses are on the decline," he said. “Now is not the time to let up on our efforts.”

On Wednesday the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released data showing that estimated drug overdose deaths between August 2024 and August 2025 declined by nearly 21 percent compared with the previous year.

The decline in overdose deaths in the U.S. is not by chance, said Regina LaBelle, a professor of addiction policy at Georgetown University, to SciAm on Wednesday.

“The federal government invested in state and community-based efforts to prevent substance use, treat people with substance use disorder and support recovery. The funding cuts made by the administration today reflect a retreat from these investments,” she said.

Ciccarone noted to SciAm that the opioid epidemic has disproportionately affected red states. “The Trump administration, in both terms, could be claiming some credit for the reduction in deaths,” he said. “It doesn’t make any sense.”

Speaking to SciAm on Wednesday, Caleb Banta-Green, a research professor at the University of Washington, who studies drug trends, said that the then proposed cuts would effectively “gut” lifesaving services for people all across the country. “In addition to saving lives and supporting recovery, treating substance use disorder is the most impactful way to reduce ‘demand’ for drugs, with its upstream impacts on drug trafficking and manufacturing,” he said. Combating drug trafficking has been a priority of the Trump administration.

“The bottom line is that federal investment in mental health and addiction services saves lives,” said Arthur C. Evans, Jr., CEO of the American Psychological Association, in a statement on Wednesday. “Abruptly cutting this support, including to school-based and other youth-focused mental health programs, threatens to destabilize mental health care in our communities and puts our most vulnerable populations at risk.”

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and SAMHSA did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Editor's Note (1/15/26): This article was updated to reflect new reporting that the Trump administration has reinstated federal grants for mental health and addiction services. The text was previously updated with additional information on January 14. This is a developing news story and may be updated further.

Jackie Flynn Mogensen is a breaking news reporter at Scientific American. Before joining SciAm, she was a science reporter at Mother Jones, where she received a National Academies Eric and Wendy Schmidt Award for Excellence in Science Communications in 2024. Mogensen holds a master’s degree in environmental communication and a bachelor’s degree in earth sciences from Stanford University. She is based in New York City.

More by Jackie Flynn Mogensen

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