Minnesota Reels After Sudden Cuts to Mental Health Aid | Image Source: kstp.com
SAINT PAUL, Minnesota, March 25, 2025 – In a movement that sent shock waves through Minnesota’s public health and infrastructure systems, the Trump administration abruptly ended $27.5 million in federal donations for behavioural health treatment and substance use programs. The funding cuts, which are part of a broader federal spending revolt at the time of the pandemic, have raised concerns between government officials and community organizations who warn against a cascade crisis for vulnerable populations already struggling for access to care.
According to the Minnesota Department of Human Services (DHS), the completion was sudden and did not provide an opportunity for transition planning. DHS Acting Commissioner Shireen Gandhi said the movement would lead to “a reduction in access to care, a widening of health disparities and an increase in tension in an already widespread mental health system in Minnesota.” The subsidies were part of the federal relief measures VOCID-19, which were to expire in September 2025. However, early completion leaves hundreds of programs across the state moving to survive.
These include school prevention programmes, damage reduction initiatives to address the opioids crisis and essential rehabilitation services for thousands of Minnesota. According to Assistant Commissioner Teresa Steinmetz of Minnesota Comportential Health Administration, the cuts come in the middle of what she described as a “national behavioural health crisis,” highlighting the dissonance between federal withdrawal and local needs. Speaking with MPR News, Steinmetz highlighted the lasting consequences of this unexpected change.
What mental health services are affected in Minnesota?
Radical cancellation affects a wide variety of behavioural health initiatives. As described by DHS data and reviewed by 5 INVESTIGATES, more than 400 licensed substance treatment programs operate in Minnesota. Since the end of 2023, this number has decreased by 3.5 per cent, with six programmes ending in the last three months. According to DHS, more than 8% of programs are no longer operational, a trend that will only accelerate under the weight of missing funds.
More critical, these programs are not just numbers on a spreadsheet. They provide essential services, often essential: opioid treatment programs, community recovery support, outreach services and school boards. Each cancelled gift is not only a budget item; It is a lost counsellor, a closed clinic, a support group that no longer meets. Community leaders caution that rural and disadvantaged areas will support most of this fall, where access to care was already fragile.
An example is a Minneapolis-based non-profit damage reduction organization that distributed naloxone and fentanyl test strips. Without the subsidy, your supplies will be exhausted in May. Another small Rochester clinic that serves low-income clients with mental health diagnoses and the use of coacidiva substances said they may have to reduce their burden by 40% in weeks. For those in recovery, this could mean relapse, hospitalization, or worse.
Why was the fund cut so suddenly?
According to a spokesperson for the Federal Department of Health and Social Services (SHS), the decision to obtain funds from the time of the VOCID was part of a broader realignment of spending priorities. In a statement, the department stated:
“The VOCID-19 pandemic is over, and H.H.S. will no longer waste billions of dollars from taxpayers in response to a non-existent pandemic that the Americans have displaced for years. »
However, critics argue that this perspective ignores the long-term effects of the pandemic on mental health. As Steinmetz pointed out, the pandemic not only left physical illness during its outbreak, but also caused an increase in anxiety, depression, addiction and burns that continue today. In many cases, the same programs funded through these grants have been created to meet these needs.
In addition, the sudden nature of the withdrawal, without interruption, transition or notice, raised concerns during the administrative process. Steinmetz described the impact as a “cat coup”, explaining that even the money had been planned to expire in September, the early reduction meant zero preparation time. DHS is now competing to identify and report affected programs and works in coordination with community partners to try to stop bleeding.
What about infrastructure and transport reductions?
At the same time, Minnesota faces another challenge: the potential loss of $630 million in transportation infrastructure and funding. Funding was initially allocated by the Infrastructure and Employment Investment Act, 2021 (IIJA) and the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), both defended by the Biden administration. However, a decree of 20 January by President Trump to release American energy led to a pause in disbursements and a subsequent note of 18 February by Transport Secretary Sean Duffy ordered DOT agencies to cancel or freeze programs that were contrary to the order.
Reductions threaten everything, from improving roads and public transport to climate and equity initiatives. According to Transport for the Americas data, the affected counties include Hennepin ($20 million), Ramsey ($12 million) and even rural counties such as Cook ($1.25 million) and Koochiching ($1.4 million), indicating that no region is immune.
This poses a critical dilemma: most federal funds for transportation require equal funding from state or local governments. Minnesota has committed $1.64 billion to such games. Without promised federal funding, projects can be cancelled or delayed, forcing communities to exhaust scarce resources or abandon ambitious and planned improvements. As the Minnesota Reformer pointed out, this effectively undermines long-term efforts to build a sustainable, fair and accessible transportation system.
How do communities respond to these cuts?
The double blow – to mental health and transport services – leads urgently to action at both state and federal levels. Public health advocates and officials argue that the already extensive Minnesota safety nets cannot absorb these shocks alone. Non-profit organizations and local governments remain in limbo, not knowing how to act as clouds of future fiscal uncertainty.
Core groups like Our Streets, which manage federal subsidies to reconfigure urban transport corridors for pedestrians and climate goals, say they already feel the impact. Projects to reconnect communities and reduce pollution could remain indefinitely. As one local administrator said, “we had federal funds in our hands, a community plan, and now we’re trapped in limbo.”
Meanwhile, health advocates work overtime to find sources of emergency funding or philanthropic support to maintain essential services. But such solutions are unsustainable in the long run. Legislators such as Governor Tim Walz and local members of Congress are invited to bridge the gap – financial and political. Without strong state intervention, hundreds of communities can be found without the mental health or transit services on which they depend.
What can we do to move forward?
Although the outlook remains uncertain, experts point out that there are strategies Minnesota can implement. On the one hand, the Minnesota Ministry of Transportation (MnDOT) can prioritize formula-funded projects, which are more difficult for federal agencies to unilaterally cancel. In addition, the government’s transportation budget, which exceeds federal contributions of $2.7 billion per year, can be more strategically focused on risk projects.
Similarly, for behavioural health, the Minnesota legislature could move to establish a state emergency fund or reorient opioid settlement funds to support the most vulnerable programs. Reforming the reimbursement of drugs, particularly for drug treatment providers, could also help stabilize the sector in the long term.
But more than technical solutions, this moment requires a political calculation. The rhetoric of “return to normal” loses the reality that many communities continue to face: a mental health crisis, dependency, housing instability and systemic inequalities exacerbated – unresolved – by the pandemic. Remove support now sends a message that these problems are no longer a priority.
Why does it matter to all Minnesota?
Some might ask: If I don’t use public transit, or have never needed a mental health clinic, why should I care? The answer is simple: health and community infrastructure are public goods. When a rural city loses its only substance use program, people need treatment, but this is not the case. This results in emergency visits, prison reserves and long-term health costs for both the system and taxpayers.
Similarly, when a bridge repair or improvements to the transit corridors are delayed, it is reduced, not only the disadvantages for some pilots. It affects local trade, security and access to employment. These are not niche problems. They play all aspects of Minnesota’s economic, social and environmental well-being.
In short, these cuts do not only affect the “others”. They will resonate throughout the state – urban and rural, red and blue. And without intervention, the consequences will be immediate and lasting.
At a time when the demand for mental health care and resilient infrastructure is increasing, the withdrawal of support is not only short-term financial – it is socially costly. The question now becomes: Will Minnesota be a step towards the abandonment of the federal government?
