Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Trump administration terminates around $2 billion in mental health, addiction grants (Updated x5)

Wednesday, Jan 14, 2026 - Posted by Isabel Miller

* NPR…

The Trump administration sent shockwaves through the U.S. mental health and drug addiction system late Tuesday, sending hundreds of termination letters, effective immediately, for federal grants supporting health services.

Three sources said they believe total cuts to nonprofit groups, many providing street-level care to people experiencing addiction, homelessness and mental illness, could reach roughly $2 billion. NPR wasn’t able to independently confirm the scale of the grant cancellation. The U.S. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMSHA) didn’t respond to a request for clarification.

Ryan Hampton, the founder of Mobilize Recovery, a national advocacy nonprofit for people in and seeking recovery, told NPR his group lost roughly $500k “overnight.” […]

According to the letter, grants are terminated as of yesterday, Jan.13, adding that “costs resulting from financial obligations incurred after termination are not allowable.” […]

This move comes on top of deep Medicaid cuts, passed last year by the Republican-controlled Congress, which effect numerous mental health and addiction care providers.

We’ve started to reach out to Illinois officials and providers, so this post will likely be updated.

* STAT…

One high-level SAMHSA source told STAT that the agency’s staff were not aware of the cuts, which were not planned in consultation with agency staff or announced internally.

In letters informing grantee organizations of the funding cuts, SAMHSA said it was canceling grants to better align its spending with agency priorities, and informed recipient organizations that the decision was final. Documents reviewed by STAT showed that the cuts affect organizations providing a broad array of services, including comprehensive opioid treatment; addiction care for people experiencing homelessness; helping adults transition out of prison; and more.

The cuts did appear to spare certain programs, however, like Certified Community Behavioral Health Clinics, specialized facilities that offer 24/7 mental health and addiction care.

In its first year in power, the Trump administration has decimated SAMHSA, laying off hundreds of staffers and gutting entire teams devoted to school-based mental health or overseeing grant programs that worked to advocate for the rights of adults with serious mental illness. In 2025, the agency already terminated roughly $2 billion in grants for state behavioral health programs and overdose prevention.

* The Bulwark…

Rep. Paul Tonko, a New York Democrat who has been leading efforts to document and spotlight Trump administration attacks on mental health services, denounced the cuts in a statement that his office provided to me. […]

Tonko went on to note that the grants come from money that Congress already appropriated, and that are part of the agency’s budget—producing yet another instance of the Trump administration defying Congress by refusing to spend money it has approved.

“The cancellations were to bipartisan grants already approved by Congress and the President himself that cover programs from youth overdose prevention to prenatal and postpartum care for women,” Tonko said.

…Adding… US Sen. Dick Durbin…

U.S. Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL) today released the following statement after the Trump Administration terminated an estimated $2 billion in grant funding from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) to treat addiction, mental health, and provide homelessness services. The grant cuts also affect Durbin’s longstanding bipartisan priorities to address childhood trauma and bolster rural ambulance services. Durbin’s office was notified by Illinois constituents last night about these abrupt grant termination letters.

“President Trump’s war on drugs will take more than a new President in Venezuela. Last night’s termination of addiction treatment is a step backwards that will cost lives. Other cuts to mental health treatment and EMS services show this Administration is more interested in building White House ballrooms than life-saving clinics.”

Despite the Trump Administration’s claims about prioritizing opioid and fentanyl overdoses, or the mental health of children, the elimination of funding for suicide prevention and addiction treatment services across the country will risk lives and harm the economy.

The Trump Administration’s grant termination directly affects Durbin and U.S. Senator Shelley Moore Capito’s (R-WV) Resilience Investment, Support, and Expansion (RISE) from Trauma Act, bipartisan legislation to increase support for children who have been exposed to Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) and trauma, including witnessing community violence, parental addiction, or abuse.

These cuts also affect Durbin and U.S. Senator Susan Collins’ Supporting and Improving Rural EMS Needs (SIREN) Reauthorization Act, legislation that supports rural EMS agencies in training and recruiting staff, conducting certification courses, and purchasing equipment, including naloxone to address the opioid overdose epidemic.

…Adding…The termination letter sent to providers…

Funding for the referenced award is hereby terminated pursuant to 2 C.F.R. § 200.340(a)(4). This letter constitutes a notice of termination, effective January 13, 2026.

Pursuant to the terms of the award and 2 C.F.R. § 200.340(a)(4), SAMHSA may terminate a federal award, “to the extent authorized by law, if an award no longer effectuates the program goals or agency priorities.”

SAMHSA’s current priorities, https://www.samhsa.gov/about/strategic-priorities, include focusing agency resources on promoting innovative programs and interventions that address the rising rates of mental illness and substance abuse conditions, overdose, and suicide and their connections to chronic diseases, homelessness, and other challenges our Nation’s communities face. A key component of this effort is innovations in grant making – developing grants tailored to states and communities that provide services and supports to effect immediate and positive health changes in the people and communities we serve; and to measure our success. As a result, SAMHSA is adjusting its discretionary award portfolio, which includes terminating some of its awards, in order to better prioritize agency resources towards the above-mentioned priorities.

Although in its discretion SAMHSA may suspend (rather than immediately terminate) an award to allow the recipient an opportunity to take appropriate corrective action before SAMHSA makes a termination decision, after review and consideration, no corrective action is possible here since no corrective action could align the award with current agency priorities.

Costs resulting from financial obligations incurred after termination are not allowable other than in accordance with 2 CFR § 200.472 or as may be provided in further instruction from the agency.

Nothing in this notice excuses either SAMHSA or you from complying with the closeout obligations imposed by 2 C.F.R. §§ 200.344-200.345. Consistent with 2 C.F.R. 200.344, you will have 120 days from the effective date of termination to liquidate all financial obligations incurred prior to termination of this award.

Christopher D. Carroll
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary

Emphasis added.

…Adding… From the Division of Behavioral Health & Recovery at the Illinois Department of Human Services…

This morning, DBHR received emails from the federal Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) announcing the termination of two federal discretionary grants, effective January 13, 2026.

DBHR’s terminated grants are the Strategic Prevention Framework – Partnerships for Success for States (SPF-PFSS) and the Illinois Prevent Prescription Drug/Opioid Overdose-Related Deaths (IPDO). The termination of these grants could result in a loss of up to $2.5 million in federal dollars each year supporting substance use and overdose prevention efforts in Illinois.

DBHR remains committed to the intent behind these grant programs and is working to mitigate the effect of these unexpected terminations. We are also exploring all other appropriate action, including legal action.

We will communicate directly with subrecipients in these two programs about next steps and will continue to keep our providers and stakeholders updated as we learn more.

…Adding… Pritzker…

Shameful and cruel.

Trump is breaking his pledge to MAHA, cutting addiction care, and pulling the plug on programs that improve Americans' mental health to prevent suicide.

Illinois is fighting for the support our people deserve — we'll be here for you. https://t.co/Y2lizXHXDD

— Governor JB Pritzker (@GovPritzker) January 14, 2026

…Adding… National Council for Mental Wellbeing…

Late yesterday, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) sent termination letters canceling congressionally-appropriated grants to fund mental health and substance use programs.

While we are still learning the full scope of the terminations, we understand that the impacts are widespread. Though not yet confirmed, some sources have estimated approximately 2,800 grants were canceled, totaling more than $2 billion. According to preliminary information we have received, it appears that SAMHSA programs that have not been impacted by these terminations include the State Opioid Response Grant, Certified Community Behavioral Health Clinic (CCBHC) funding, and funding for the 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline.

National Council for Mental Wellbeing President and CEO Chuck Ingoglia made the following statement in response to the administration’s cuts:

“Many of our members – the organizations that provide mental health and substance use treatment and care – have reached out to express concern that the decision to eliminate lifesaving mental health and substance use grants will further undermine what have long been bipartisan efforts to help people in their communities. We are currently working to understand the scope of the cuts. But here’s one thing we do understand: These are not abstract budget lines—they are lifelines. And we know that mental health or substance use conditions know no partisan bounds. The National Council is already working with bipartisan allies in Congress to gain clarity and share information as quickly as possible.”

Reach out to your elected officials to elevate this issue. Please customize our prewritten message and send to your federal lawmakers by using the link here.

26 Comments

US Supreme Court rules Bost can challenge mail-in ballot law (Updated x3)

Wednesday, Jan 14, 2026 - Posted by Isabel Miller

* Background is here if you need it. The Hill…

The Supreme Court on Wednesday revived an Illinois Congress member’s lawsuit over a state mail-in ballot law, paving the way for political candidates nationwide to challenge election laws more easily in their states.

The justices ruled 7-2 that Rep. Mike Bost (R-Ill.) has the legal right to sue Illinois over its ability to count mail-in ballots received after Election Day, a practice targeted by President Trump and his allies.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion over the dissents of two of the court’s liberals: Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

* More from Crain’s…

The decision clears the way for Bost to press his claim that Illinois unlawfully allows mail ballots postmarked by Election Day to be counted up to 14 days later, even as the court weighs a separate case that could ultimately resolve the underlying dispute. […]

Bost, from downstate Murphysboro, has argued the Illinois extended deadline is superseded by federal election law. But two lower courts ruled that the Bost and two presidential electors lacked legal standing to press their suit.

The 7th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in Chicago rejected Bost’s claims that the extended mail-in ballot count would require his campaign to spend more money on ballot monitoring and would threaten his electoral chances. The appeals court noted that Bost had won the 2022 election with 75 percent of the vote and thus any harm from the extended deadline was hypothetical. […]

One irony is that while the decision allows Bost to revive his suit, the Supreme Court has since taken up a separate case from Mississippi that directly involves the question of whether federal election statutes preempt a state law permitting mail-in ballots to be counted after Election Day. The decision in that case, Watson v. Republican National Committee, could settle the underlying issue raised in Bost’s suit.

* From Chief Justice John Roberts’ majority opinion…

Candidates, in short, are not “mere bystanders” in their own elections. They have an obvious personal stake in how the result is determined and regarded. Departures from the preordained rules cause them particularized
and concrete harm. […]

Win or lose, candidates suffer when the process departs from the law. Thus, the long-shot and shoo-in alike would suffer harm if a State chose to conduct its election by, say, flipping a coin. The result of such an election would not reflect the will of the people, and the candidates would lose the opportunity to compete for the people’s support. So too, similar harms would result from less dramatic departures—for example, if a State decided to discard a random 10% of cast votes. Whether these decisions help, hurt, or have no effect on a candidate’s electoral prospects, they deprive the candidate of a fair process and an accurate result.

* Justice Katanji Brown Jackson’s dissenting opinion…

Alarmingly, today’s ruling also has far-reaching implications beyond Bost’s election, since dispensing with our usual standing requirements opens the floodgates to exactly the type of troubling election-related litigation the Court purportedly wants to avoid. For example, under the Court’s new harm-free candidate-standing rule, an electoral candidate who loses in a landslide can apparently still file a disruptive legal action in federal court after the election is over.

All he must do is assert that an election rule somehow deprived him of a fair process—even if that rule played no role in the election’s outcome or otherwise caused him harm. That possibility is especially concerning given the host of election-related regulations that States must promulgate when exercising their constitutional duty to set the “Times, Places, and Manner of holding Elections.” Art.

States regulate everything from a ballot’s chain of custody to its format—all of which the majority would permit candidates to challenge in court without offering any theory of how such rules harm them personally. It is impossible to square this outcome with the practical concerns the Court identifies. Ironically, then, it is the Court’s new and generous candidate-standing rule that invites late-breaking judicial intervention into the political process in a manner that is “as practically untenable as it is undemocratic.”

* Justice Robert’s rebuff…

We do not share the dissent’s concern that our recognition of this commonsense reality will “open[] the floodgates” to candidate-led challenges to ballot “format.” Indeed, the dissent itself suggests that courts already “ ‘often decide ballot-design cases,’ ” pointing to a case in which a court concluded that candidates did have standing to challenge ‘the form of election ballots.’ To the extent the dissent’s concern is that federal courts will be inundated with more trivial “format” challenges, post, at 12, to things like “ballot font and typeface,” it is neither clear why candidates would waste their resources in this way nor on what basis in federal law such suits could be brought. In any event, we address today only candidates’ standing to challenge rules that, like Illinois’s, govern the counting of votes in their elections.

…Adding… ILGOP Chair Kathy Salvi…

“Today, the United States Supreme Court agreed that Congressman Bost has the right to appeal Illinois’ disastrous mail-in voting laws,” said ILGOP Chair Kathy Salvi. “Illinoisans deserve to know their election results as early as possible and should not have to wait days, or even weeks, to know election results. It is imperative that Illinois leads with commonsense policies that strengthen and secure our election process.”

…Adding… US Rep. Mike Bost…

U.S. Rep. Mike Bost (IL-12) applauded the U.S. Supreme Court’s 7-2 decision today granting him standing in his lawsuit challenging an Illinois law that allows vote-by-mail ballots received up to 14 days after Election Day to be counted. Vote-by-mail ballots without postmarks can also currently be tabulated up to 14 days later if they are dated on or before Election Day.

“I’m thankful the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled strongly in our favor and concluded we have standing to challenge Illinois’ unconstitutional law allowing vote-by-mail ballots to be counted two weeks after Election Day,” said Bost. “This is a critically important step forward in the fight for election integrity and fair elections. I look forward to continuing to pursue this case as we navigate the next stages of the legal process. It’s vitally important that we restore the people’s trust in our elections.”

Bost is being represented by Judicial Watch, a conservative foundation that fights for accountability and integrity in law, politics and government.

“This is the most important Supreme Court election law ruling in a generation,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “Too many courts have denied candidates the standing to challenge unlawful election rules such as the outrageous ballots that arrive after Election Day. American citizens concerned about election integrity should celebrate this Supreme Court victory. I thank Judicial Watch’s legion of supporters and our election law team that helped achieve this historic result.”

…Adding… Democratic Party of Illinois…

Illinois Democrats recognize Congressman Bost’s crusade for what it is: voter suppression. This isn’t about election integrity; it’s about seizing an opportunity to sow more doubt into our elections in a moment where MAGA threatens democracy on a daily basis. Most importantly, attacking mail-voting is attacking the farmer or the working mom who didn’t have time to make it to the polls, and the military voters who serve our nation overseas, but want their voices heard. These are the people Republicans are targeting.

41 Comments

« NEWER POSTS