The first 100 days of a new administration — while only a snapshot — can offer insight into the direction the rest of the presidency may take. This post examines the impact of the Trump administration’s first 100 days on women’s health and identifies potential threats to health services that are important for women.
Diminished Federal Capacity
Restructuring the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has emerged as a central focus of the Trump administration, framed as an effort to optimize government efficiency and reduce bureaucracy but implemented at the expense of essential public services and programs. The President’s fiscal year 2026 “skinny budget” requests a 26.2 percent cut to HHS from 2025, consistent with the planned “dramatic restructuring” of the department. It proposes significant cuts to a number of offices and programs focused on women’s health, such as the Teen Pregnancy Prevention Program.
HHS has already downsized its workforce from 82,000 to 62,000 employees. Abrupt terminations have hindered staff’s ability to hand off their responsibilities, effectively shuttering some programs. Mass layoffs have threatened the administration of programs critical for maternal and reproductive health. For example, HHS has reportedly fired many staff at the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) who oversee the following:
- Title V Maternal and Child Health Services Block Grant, a HRSA program providing grants to all states and jurisdictions to address the health needs of pregnant women, mothers, infants, and children. In 2023, the program helped provide services for approximately 59 million people.
- National Maternal Mental Health Hotline, a free 24/7 hotline run by HRSA to support pregnant and postpartum women facing mental health challenges. Since its launch in 2022, it has received more than 54,173 calls and texts.
- National ART Surveillance System, a CDC program mandated by Congress to provide pregnancy success rates of assisted reproductive technology (ART) clinics. The data help individuals and couples navigate ART and consider their options.
Federal Funding Freeze and Information Suppression
Under the guise of enforcing executive orders (EOs) prohibiting diversity efforts, the Trump administration has imposed punitive measures. For example, HHS has frozen nearly $35 million in federal funding for Title X grantees, alleging they violated EOs. Title X grantees are safety-net family planning providers that offer care like cancer screenings, contraceptives, and testing for sexually transmitted infections. The Guttmacher Institute estimates that permanently withholding federal funds would result in at least 834,000 people losing access to critical health care services during the year. The funding freeze would eliminate Title X care in California, Hawaii, Maine, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, and Utah.
CDC has paused the collection of 2025 Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System data from state health departments, citing modifications to “comply with President Trump’s executive orders.” Without ongoing surveillance, it will be difficult to identify emerging infant and maternal health issues and develop evidence-based programs and policies.
Additionally, the administration erased information it considers in violation of EOs. For example, the administration removed ReproductiveRights.gov, a website created by the Biden administration to provide information about access to reproductive health care following the Supreme Court’s decision eliminating the constitutional right to abortion.
Litigating Reproductive Health Rights
President Trump signed an EO reaffirming the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits the use of federal funding for abortions except in cases of rape, incest, and life endangerment. It also revoked President Biden’s EOs to protect access to contraception and abortion. The EO has no immediate effect but instead previews rulemaking and administrative actions aimed at undermining reproductive health care access.
The administration has adopted new positions in reproductive health–related litigation. The Department of Justice (DOJ) dismissed United States v. State of Idaho, a lawsuit initiated by the Biden administration arguing that the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) preempts Idaho’s strict abortion ban, thereby requiring emergency abortion care when medically necessary. The case has no impact on EMTALA protections in all states (except Texas due to a narrow court order), and HHS has not rescinded Biden-era guidance reaffirming such protections. This means EMTALA protections remain in place for most of the country, but DOJ’s dismissal indicates the administration is unlikely to effectively enforce them.
DOJ also asked a federal judge to dismiss Missouri et al. v. FDA and Danco Laboratories, LLC, a lawsuit questioning the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) rules on mifepristone. Rather than defend FDA’s policies on medication abortion, the DOJ argued that Missouri, Idaho, and Kansas lack standing to sue. Like the decision to defend the Affordable Care Act’s preventive services requirement, the dismissal is part of the administration’s legal strategy to bolster executive power. Notably, the HHS Secretary stated at a congressional hearing that he had asked the FDA to conduct a “complete review” of mifepristone in response to a new report by a conservative think tank, which was neither peer-reviewed nor published in a medical journal. The investigation could lead to the rollback of regulations, such as those permitting access to medication abortion via telehealth.
Looking Forward
The first 100 days have set the stage for further actions that would harm women’s health by reducing federal funding and capacity for critical programs and services. President Trump is expected to soon release a detailed budget for 2026 outlining his administration’s plans for reshaping the federal government. Although the budget is simply a request to Congress, which ultimately determines agency funding levels, this administration has pushed the limits of executive power to advance its agenda. It remains to be seen whether Congress will function as a check on that power.
