Inside Capitol Hill: The Fight for Science & Public Health

Inside My Conversations with Lawmakers on Science, Health, and Policy

Rep. Ted Lieu and his guest, Dr. Shannon Whaley, joined me to discuss the urgent need to protect funding for public health and scientific research.

---

Hi - this newsletter is free to read, but a paid subscription helps to support my work. If you find my work helpful, please consider upgrading to become a paid subscriber. Thanks for being here.

---

Earlier this week, I spent a full day on Capitol Hill meeting individually with members of Congress and their guests who were in Washington, D.C., for President Trump's joint address to Congress. These conversations focused on some of the most pressing issues facing science and healthcare today, including cuts to NIH funding, Medicaid, and SNAP; the increasing privatization of scientific research, and the broader challenges confronting public health in the U.S.​

I didn’t just go in with questions. My goal was also to relay the concerns I hear every day from scientists, medical professionals, and public health experts, particularly around the growing uncertainty in research funding and the potential long-term consequences of these policy changes. I wanted to help lawmakers understand how deeply these cuts will impact the foundation and future of science in this country.

Across conversations, I heard overwhelming concern about the future of science and public health in the U.S. I also heard a frustrating but important reality: with Republicans controlling the House, Senate, and White House, Democrats are relying heavily on the courts to fight back against damaging policies. At the same time, there is a growing recognition that scientists and medical professionals need to step up as stronger advocates. We need to push back, communicate more effectively, and help the public understand why these issues matter. Not just for research institutions, but for the health and well-being of millions of Americans

Here’s what I learned.

NIH Cuts and the Future of Science

One of the biggest concerns I raised with lawmakers was the proposed cuts to NIH funding and the broader movement toward privatizing scientific research. These cuts aren’t just theoretical, they are already disrupting labs, clinical trials, and the careers of scientists across the country.

The current administration’s proposed 15% cap on indirect costs for NIH grants may sound like a bureaucratic adjustment, but in reality, it guts the funding that research institutions rely on for infrastructure, lab maintenance, and essential personnel. Additionally, the administration has canceled key NIH review meetings, which means that many researchers may be unable to receive the grants they were depending on. The result? A freeze on hiring, stalled projects, and scientists questioning their future in the U.S.

Rep. Ted Lieu shared how this is playing out in his district, where Berkeley researchers working on CRISPR technology to cure sickle cell disease have been forced to put projects on hold due to funding instability.

Dr. James Brewer, Chair of Neuroscience at UC San Diego and Director of the Shiley-Marcos Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center, described the direct impact these cuts are having on Alzheimer’s research. And Rep. Scott Peters emphasized:

“Of the 35 Alzheimer’s research centers in the U.S., 14 will run out of funding by the end of April. That means firing scientists. Think about the message that sends to young scientists who want to work in this country. This is how you lose leadership in science.”

Rep. Bill Foster, a former physicist, explained the long-term consequences of slashing research budgets:

“When you fire a scientist, the damage isn’t felt this year - it’s felt 30 years from now, when the discoveries that should have been made never happen.”

Perhaps the most alarming trend, which is one I hear about frequently from early-career scientists and PhD students, is that many are actively looking for jobs abroad due to funding uncertainty. For example, before coming to DC, one of the people I heard from was a PhD student in chemistry at Berkeley who told me that nearly all of his colleagues are exploring opportunities outside the U.S. This was something I wanted to bring directly to lawmakers to ensure they understood the real risk of a brain drain in American science.

At the university level, Dr. Sonja Feist-Price, Provost and Senior VP of Academic and Student Affairs at Chicago State University, highlighted how these cuts are already disrupting education and the pipeline of future researchers:

“We’ve already lost $1.6 million in funding that supported both students and research. That directly impacts our ability to educate the next generation of scientists, STEM professionals, and healthcare workers. When these funds disappear, it’s not just students who suffer—it’s the entire field.”

This isn’t just a crisis for academia or the research community - it’s a crisis for the future of medicine, public health, and innovation in the United States. And if we don’t stop these cuts now, the damage will last for decades.

Medicaid & SNAP Cuts: A Direct Attack on Public Health

If you’ve followed my work, you know I talk a lot about chronic disease prevention and the social determinants of health. Policies like SNAP (food assistance) and Medicaid (health coverage for low-income Americans) play a critical role in reducing chronic disease and health disparities.

And yet, the current administration’s budget proposal calls for $880 billion in cuts to programs under the Energy & Commerce Committee’s jurisdiction (including Medicaid) and $230 billion in cuts to the Agriculture Committee, which oversees SNAP. These cuts are being pushed to offset the cost of tax cuts that will overwhelmingly benefit corporations and the wealthiest Americans.

I spoke with Dr. Shannon Whaley, who attended President Trump’s joint address to Congress as a guest of Rep. Ted Lieu. Dr. Whaley is the Director of Research and Evaluation for PHFE WIC, the largest local agency WIC program in the nation, serving over 190,000 women, infants, and children each month. Her work focuses on documenting how investments in WIC improve health outcomes and save taxpayer dollars by reducing long-term healthcare costs. She explained:

“Every dollar invested in WIC saves at least $2.48 down the road. These aren’t wasteful programs—they’re keeping families healthy.”

The administration has attempted to justify these cuts by claiming they are targeting “waste, fraud, and abuse.” But as Rep. Jim McGovern, a leading voice on food security, made clear:

“This isn’t about saving money. It’s about cruelty. These cuts will make people hungrier, sicker, and more desperate.”

One of the most frustrating aspects of this debate is the misinformation around Medicaid cuts. Many Republicans insist Medicaid isn’t being touched—but the numbers tell a different story. Rep. Emily Randall was blunt:

“You cannot cut $880 billion from Medicaid without gutting the program. The math doesn’t lie.”

And the consequences go beyond individuals losing healthcare coverage. Tamra King, CEO of Harbor Community Health Centers, attended the address as a guest of Rep. Nanette Barragán and spoke to me about the devastating impact these cuts would have on her patients and community. Her federally qualified health center in San Pedro, California, provides essential primary care, dental, and behavioral health services. But 85% of her patients rely on Medicaid—and if these cuts go through, up to 25% of them will lose access to care.

“It’s going to be a game changer, a ground shift. We’re going to lose healthcare for thousands of our patients, and that also means we will have to lay off staff. We’re deeply concerned about what this will mean for our community.”

Rep. Barragán, who sits on the Energy & Commerce Committee, confirmed that this is exactly what’s happening:

“Republicans say they aren’t cutting Medicaid, but the math makes that impossible. They don’t want to say they’re cutting healthcare for kids, but that’s exactly what this bill does.”

This is a moment when clear, fact-based communication is essential. The public needs to understand that these cuts won’t just affect “other people.” They will hit children, seniors, people with disabilities, rural hospitals, and community clinics that serve entire towns.

These are the real-world consequences of budget decisions made in Washington. And unless we push back, the people who will suffer the most are those who can least afford it.

The Rise of Anti-Science Policies

Another key issue that came up again and again was the broader attack on science and public health, particularly in areas like vaccine policy, reproductive health, and climate science.

Rep. Judy Chu, a former professor of psychology, described the administration’s deliberate efforts to erode public trust in science:

“The first thing the head of HHS did was call for a ‘review’ of vaccine schedules. They say they aren’t changing policies, but everything they do is meant to cast doubt.”

Nowhere is this more evident than in the resurgence of vaccine-preventable diseases. In 2000, measles was declared eliminated in the U.S. But in 2025, the country is experiencing a growing measles outbreak, with over 160 reported cases across at least nine states, resulting in the first measles-related death in nearly a decade.

Despite these warning signs, the administration seems to be actively making it harder to protect public health. In a concerning move, HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. abruptly canceled a critical FDA advisory meeting on this season’s flu vaccine, a decision that experts fear will disrupt flu vaccine production ahead of what is already a severe flu season. According to the New York Times, this meeting was meant to guide vaccine manufacturers in preparing for next year’s flu strains, yet it was halted without explanation.

Rep. Maxine Dexter, MD, a pulmonologist and critical care physician, explained how devastating these disruptions are to vaccine distribution and public trust:

“HHS has an enormous amount of power over the vaccine supply chain. Scientists can try to hold shadow meetings, but it’s not the same—there’s no official oversight, no standard approval process. We’re undermining our own future success by forcing this to happen outside of FDA and HHS protocols.”

She also warned that these policies have consequences beyond vaccines. Many doctors, especially those in pediatrics, primary care, and OB/GYN, are experiencing burnout and even considering leaving the profession due to the relentless spread of misinformation:

“We are going to lose doctors in key fields because they’re exhausted by misinformation. This is a manufactured crisis.”

As someone who spends a lot of time fighting misinformation online, this hit hard. The wellness industry has found a way to thrive in this moment, often spreading fear and doubt while profiting off unproven “alternatives.” The scientific and medical communities need to find better ways to communicate before this trend becomes irreversible.

What Democrats Are Doing & What We Can Do

One of the key questions I asked nearly every lawmaker I spoke with was: What are Democrats doing to stop these cuts and anti-science policies? It was important for me to press them on this because many of us in the scientific and medical communities are looking for real solutions and a path forward.

I posed this question to Rep. Rosa DeLauro, Rep. Raul Ruiz, MD, Rep. Bill Foster, Rep. Emily Randall, Rep. Jonathan Jackson, and others, and while their responses varied in specifics, a common theme emerged: Democrats are fighting back, but their options are limited in the minority.

Instead, they are focusing on three main strategies:

1️⃣ Litigation: Over 100 lawsuits have been filed against administration policies, many aimed at stopping funding freezes and research cuts.
2️⃣ Public pressure: Members of Congress repeatedly told me that scientists and medical professionals need to be louder in advocating for funding and evidence-based policy.
3️⃣ Preparing for 2026: Winning back the House is the long-term plan. In the meantime, they are fighting for every inch of ground they can hold.

As Rep. Raul Ruiz, MD put it:

“This is a dark time for public health. But if we sit back and do nothing, we let them win.”

This fight isn’t just happening in Congress. It’s happening in courtrooms, in local elections, and in the public conversation. And that means we all have a role to play.

Final Thoughts: Where Do We Go From Here?

After these conversations, I left Capitol Hill with a mix of frustration, urgency, and resolve. The threats to science and public health are real, and they are happening right now.

But I also left with a sense of clarity:

✅ We cannot afford to be silent.
✅ We must do a better job of explaining the stakes in ways people understand.
✅ We need to push back against misinformation, not just in policy, but in everyday conversations.

Most of all, I left with a reminder that the people in Congress I met with do care. They are frustrated, too. They want more public engagement. They want more voices speaking up.

So here’s my ask to you: Don’t check out. Don’t disengage.

📌 Share this with people in your network.
📌 Call your representatives—even, and especially, if they are supporting anti-science or anti-public health policies.
📌 Speak up for science, healthcare, and evidence-based policy, both online and in real life.

Because our voices are critical in this fight.