hide – COMM

Public Opinion on Threats to Public Health and Science

commhsp — Mon, 03 Nov 2025 18:08:54 +0000

Public Concern about Threats to Public Health and Science Remains Modest

Exhibit 1a: Any Reported Awareness of Key Actions Affecting Public Health and Science, by Partisanship (N=1,120)

Since January 2025, have you heard anything about the following topics, whether from media sources and/or other people?	Any reported awareness (March 2025)	Any reported awareness (Sept 2025)	Democrat	Independent	Republican	p
Cutting the funds the federal government pays universities and other research institutions to help support overhead costs (known as “indirect costs”)	73.3%	61.2%	73.5%	50.1%	53.4%	.000
Stopping ongoing collection of publicly available health and science data by the federal government [In March: Removing]	[58.8%]	39.5%	60.8%	22.3%	24.6%	.000
Firing of scientists, health workers, and other civil servants	79.9%	63.4%	79.1%	45.9%	55.5%	.000
Canceling of approved research grants on topics not aligned with presidential administration priorities	70.2%	54.7%	72.4%	36.2%	45.0%	.001
Removing scientific experts from panels that make health recommendations (e.g., about vaccines, cancer screenings)	—	54.7%	71.7%	43.0%	41.5%	.000
Proposing to cut the federal budget for scientific research	—	57.1%	74.0%	47.8%	42.7%	.000
Increasing the federal government’s involvement in how universities in the United States/in your state operate*	—	53.9%	67.4%	43.1%	44.3%	.000
Issuing federal vaccine recommendations that conflict with the recommendations of professional organizations (like the American Academy of Pediatrics)	—	52.5%	68.7%	36.0%	43.1%	.000

Note. “Media sources” were defined as “e.g., social media, print or online news, podcasts, radio, and television”; “other people” were defined as “e.g., family, friends, health care providers.” <15 missing on any item. Items were randomly ordered. P values based on chi-square analyses. ^*Split ballot item, with no significant difference across groups in any reported awareness.

Exhibit 1b: Recent Reported Awareness of Key Actions Affecting Public Health and Science

Thinking only about the past few weeks, how much have you heard about the following topics from media sources and/or other people?	None	A little	Some	A lot	n
Cutting the funds the federal government pays universities and other research institutions to help support overhead costs (known as “indirect costs”)	16.4%	27.6%	35.0%	21.1%	714
Stopping ongoing collection of publicly available health and science data by the federal government	10.0%	29.9%	32.8%	27.3%	464
Firing of scientists, health workers, and other civil servants	9.2%	25.8%	31.1%	33.9%	755
Canceling of approved research grants on topics not aligned with presidential administration priorities	11.9%	25.8%	32.7%	29.6%	657
Removing scientific experts from panels that make health recommendations (e.g., about vaccines, cancer screenings)	9.2%	24.0%	31.5%	35.4%	642
Proposing to cut the federal budget for scientific research	14.7%	25.4%	36.1%	23.9%	657
Increasing the federal government’s involvement in how universities in the United States/in your state operate*	11.2%	30.6%	32.7%	25.4%	633
Issuing federal vaccine recommendations that conflict with the recommendations of professional organizations (like the American Academy of Pediatrics)	6.2%	20.6%	30.3%	42.9%	636

Note. Question only asked of those who previously reported any awareness on the corresponding item (Exhibit 1a). Media sources” were defined as “e.g., social media, print or online news, podcasts, radio, and television”; “other people” were defined as “e.g., family, friends, health care providers.” Items were randomly ordered. ^*Split ballot item, with no significant difference across groups in frequency of awareness.

Exhibit 2: Agreement with Positive and Negative Consequences of NIH Funding Cuts (N=1,120)

To what extent do you agree or disagree that funding cuts to NIH research grants will lead to…	Overall agreement (March 2025)	Overall agreement (Sept 2025)	Strongly disagree	Disagree	Neither agree nor disagree	Agree	Strongly agree
Negative impacts
…layoffs and/or hiring freezes at universities and/or their hospitals?	51.2%	51.3%	6.1%	11.5%	31.1%	30.1%	21.1%
…higher tuition costs for college students?	34.7%	37.4%	9.0%	13.9%	39.7%	22.1%	15.2%
…fewer positions for health and science graduate students?	48.2%	50.5%	6.0%	9.6%	33.9%	30.1%	20.4%
…fewer clinical trials for cancer patients?	50.2%	48.3%	7.5%	14.9%	29.2%	24.9%	23.4%
…delays in the development of new medical treatments?	48.8%	50.1%	7.2%	12.0%	30.7%	24.9%	25.2%
Positive impacts
…more streamlined operations at universities and/or their hospitals?	25.8%	24.4%	16.5%	17.3%	41.8%	19.5%	4.9%
…greater efficiencies in how medical research is conducted?	24.0%	26.1%	21.0%	17.3%	35.6%	18.9%	7.2%
…more money available to spend on patient care?	23.1%	22.0%	21.5%	21.7%	34.8%	17.1%	4.9%

Note. Overall agreement calculated by combining “agree” and “strongly agree” responses. “Don’t know” responses (<10 on any item) collapsed into “neither agree nor disagree”; <15 missing on any item. Items were randomly ordered and did not include the headers suggesting “positive” or “negative.”

Exhibit 3: Opposition to Cutting Funding for Health and Science Research (N=1,120)

Please indicate how much you support or oppose cutting federal funding of research that…	Overall oppose cutting (Sept 2025)	Strongly oppose cutting	Somewhat oppose cutting	Neither support nor oppose	Somewhat support cutting	Strongly support cutting
… provides the foundational knowledge about how the natural world works, which might lead to future discoveries about human health	40.6%	26.5%	14.1%	31.4%	17.0%	11.0%
… develops and tests new medical treatments and therapies to improve human health	44.9%	31.7%	13.2%	24.0%	18.1%	13.0%
… seeks to understand how people make decisions, including about their health	38.8%	23.5%	15.4%	34.6%	17.5%	9.0%
… seeks to understand why some groups of people are healthier or sicker than others	39.8%	26.0%	13.8%	30.4%	19.7%	10.2%

Note. Overall oppose cutting calculated by combining “strongly oppose cutting” and “somewhat oppose cutting” responses. “Don’t know” responses (<10 on any item) collapsed into “neither agree nor disagree”; <10 missing on any item. Items were randomly ordered.

Exhibit 4: Mobilization around Funding for Health and Science Research (N=1,120)

How likely are you to do the following activities in the next few months?	Overall likelihood* (Sept 2025)	Very unlikely	Unlikely	Neither likely nor unlikely	Likely	Very likely
Contact elected officials to urge them to take action to support federal funding for health and science research	20.3%	29.2%	20.7%	29.9%	12.1%	8.2%
Sign a petition to support federal funding for health and science research	35.3%	22.7%	14.1%	28.0%	22.5%	12.8%
Attend a rally to support federal funding for health and science research	14.2%	35.1%	20.0%	30.7%	8.2%	6.0%
Try to raise awareness among people you know about cuts to federal funding for health and science research	24.6%	25.4%	17.8%	32.3%	14.8%	9.7%

Note. Overall likelihood calculated by combining “likely” and “very likely” responses. “Don’t know” responses (<5 on any item) collapsed into “neither agree nor disagree”; <15 missing on any item. Items were randomly ordered.

Exhibit 5: Personal experience with interruptions or difficulties accessing services or information, by partisanship (N=1,120)

Have you or someone you know (e.g., family member, friend) experienced…	Overall (Sept 2025)	Democrat	Independent	Republican	p
Interruption or stopping of medical treatment provided through a clinical trial					.134
No	81.3%	79.0%	76.7%	87.2%
Yes	7.3%	9.3%	8.2%	4.3%
I don’t know	11.3%	11.7%	15.1%	8.6%
Difficulty accessing seasonal vaccines (e.g., for flu, RSV)					.011
No	81.5%	78.8%	77.0%	87.7%
Yes	6.7%	9.9%	5.8%	3.2%
I don’t know	11.8%	11.3%	17.2%	9.1%
Difficulty accessing COVID-19 vaccines					.000
No	76.5%	71.2%	72.8%	85.0%
Yes	10.1%	17.2%	6.8%	3.7%
I don’t know	13.4%	11.6%	20.4%	11.3%
Difficulty accessing health or science information (e.g., about vaccine recommendations, weather events)					.001
No	74.7%	70.1%	70.5%	82.9%
Yes	11.8%	18.1%	10.8%	4.8%
I don’t know	13.5%	11.8%	18.7%	12.4%

Note. <10 missing on any item. Items were randomly ordered. P values based on chi-square analyses.

Exhibit 6: Personal experience with firings, layoffs, and/or departures, by partisanship (N=1,120)

Have you or someone you know (e.g., family member, friend) been personally affected by the recent firings, layoffs, and/or departures of…	Overall (March 2025)	Overall (Sept 2025)	Democrat	Independent	Republican	p
…federal government workers						.002
No	69.3%	72.5%	68.0%	66.8%	81.5%
Yes	18.0%	17.5%	22.8%	16.9%	11.3%
I don’t know	12.8%	10.1%	9.2%	16.3%	7.2%
…state or local government workers						.000
No	—	77.3%	73.6%	70.5%	86.1%
Yes	—	12.1%	17.5%	10.6%	6.5%
I don’t know	—	10.6%	8.9%	18.9%	7.3%
…workers at universities and/or their hospitals						.000
No	—	75.8%	72.7%	65.3%	86.4%
Yes	—	13.7%	17.8%	17.8%	6.2%
I don’t know	—	10.5%	9.5%	17.0%	7.5%
…workers at non-governmental (non-profit) organizations						.001
No	—	73.0%	68.1%	66.7%	83.1%
Yes	—	15.5%	21.1%	14.5%	9.2%
I don’t know	—	11.5%	10.8%	18.8%	7.7%

Note. <15 missing on any item. Items were randomly ordered. P values based on chi-square analyses.

April 2025 Public Opinion on Medicaid

commhsp — Fri, 23 May 2025 19:46:07 +0000

These tables provide results from a survey we conducted April 7 – 27 using the probability-based SSRS Opinion Panel. We surveyed more than 1500 U.S. residents (roughly half who identified as Black and half who identified as White) and weighted the results to reflect national population distributions. Our findings have a margin of error of +/- 3.2 percentage points.

We present percentages below for the overall sample and for subgroups of respondents – by political party identification, insurance status, and whether they live in a “red” or “blue” state, according to the results of the 2024 electoral college.

Exhibit 1 shows the percentages of people who wanted Congress to “increase,” “keep the same,” or “decrease” spending on Medicaid.

Exhibit 2 shows the percentages of people who thought protecting Medicaid from cuts in federal funding would be “very effective,” “effective,” or “somewhat effective” compared to those who thought it would be only “slightly effective” or “not at all effective” in producing four different outcomes.

Exhibit 3 shows the percentages of people who were “extremely likely” or “likely” to engage in a variety of advocacy-related behaviors compared to those who were “neither likely nor unlikely,” “unlikely,” or “extremely unlikely” to do so.

Exhibit 4 provides a summary of the sample demographics.

Exhibit 1. Responses to the question, “Do you want to see Congress increase spending on Medicaid, decrease spending on Medicaid, or keep spending on Medicaid about the same?”¹

Overall		(N=1571)
+	Keep the same/Increase	75%
–	Decrease	18%

By Party²		Republican (N = 518)	Democrat (N = 495)	Independent (N = 383)	No Preference (N = 139)
+	Keep the same/Increase	51%	94%	81%	82%
–	Decrease	40%	3%	14%	6%

By Insurance Status		Medicaid Beneficiary (N = 160)	Non-Medicaid Beneficiary (N = 1262)	Uninsured (N = 120)
+	Keep the same/Increase	88%	73%	83%
–	Decrease	6%	20%	11%

By State of Residence 2024 Electoral College Results		Red States (N = 1037)	Blue States (N = 535)
+	Keep the same/Increase	74%	78%
–	Decrease	20%	15%

Notes. ¹ Weighted to Black & White U.S. adults. Margin of Standard Error: +/- 3.2%. ²Party column omits “Another party” (N = 35).

Exhibit 2. Responses to the question, “How effective do you think protecting Medicaid from federal funding cuts would be for each of the following?”¹

Overall			(N=1571)
Keeping people from becoming uninsured	+	Somewhat/Effective/(Very)	79%
Keeping people from becoming uninsured	–	Not at all/Slightly	21%
Protecting access to health care	+	Somewhat/Effective/(Very)	80%
Protecting access to health care	–	Not at all/Slightly	20%
Protecting against increases in medical debt	+	Somewhat/Effective/(Very)	77%
Protecting against increases in medical debt	–	Not at all/Slightly	23%
Protecting the health of people and families with low incomes	+	Somewhat/Effective/(Very)	81%
	–	Not at all/Slightly	19%

By Party			Republican (N = 518)	Democrat (N = 495)	Independent (N = 383)	No Preference (N = 139)
Keeping people from becoming uninsured	+	Somewhat/Effective/(Very)	67%	90%	80%	80%
Keeping people from becoming uninsured	–	Not at all/Slightly	33%	10%	20%	20%
Protecting access to health care	+	Somewhat/Effective/(Very)	68%	92%	79%	82%
Protecting access to health care	–	Not at all/Slightly	32%	8%	21%	19%
Protecting against increases in medical debt	+	Somewhat/Effective/(Very)	66%	89%	76%	81%
Protecting against increases in medical debt	–	Not at all/Slightly	34%	11%	24%	20%
Protecting the health of people and families with low incomes	+	Somewhat/Effective/(Very)	71%	94%	82%	79%
	–	Not at all/Slightly	29%	6%	18%	21%

Notes. ¹ Weighted to Black & White U.S. adults. Margin of Standard Error: +/- 3.2%. ²Party column omits “Another party” (N = 35).

Exhibit 3. Intentions to Advocate to Protect Medicaid Among respondents who think Congress should increase or keep Medicaid spending the same¹

Responses to the question, “There are many activities that a person could do to protect your state’s Medicaid program from cuts in federal funding. How likely are you to do the following in the next 12 months?”			Overall (N = 1179)	State of Residence 2024 Electoral College Results
			Overall (N = 1179)	Red States (N = 415)	Blue States (N = 764)
Contact elected officials to urge them to take action to protect Medicaid in your state.	+	Likely/(Extremely)	40%	41%	39%
	–	Neither/Unlikely/(Extremely)	60%	59%	61%
Volunteer your time to campaign for a political candidate because they support protecting Medicaid in your state.	+	Likely/(Extremely)	21%	22%	19%
	–	Neither/Unlikely/(Extremely)	79%	77%	81%
Search for information about protecting Medicaid in your state.	+	Likely/(Extremely)	56%	54%	56%
	–	Neither/Unlikely/(Extremely)	44%	45%	44%
Try to raise awareness about the effort to protect Medicaid in your state.	+	Likely/(Extremely)	45%	46%	44%
	–	Neither/Unlikely/(Extremely)	55%	54%	56%

Notes. ¹ Weighted to Black & White U.S. adults. Margin of Standard Error: +/- 3.2. ²Party column omits “Another party” (N = 35).

Exhibit 4. Sample Characteristics		Unweighted		Weighted
Exhibit 4. Sample Characteristics		N	%	N	%
Age (Mean)	1552	48.6 yrs	1571	49.8 yrs
Gender	Woman	937	60.4%	813	51.8%
	Man	594	38.3%	735	46.8%
	Another/Multiple	21	1.4%	22	1.4%
Race/Ethicity	White (non-Hispanic/non-Black)	797	51.4%	1295	82.4%
Race/Ethicity	Black (non-White) [5.3% Hispanic]	755	48.6%	276	17.6%
Political Party	Republican	333	21.5%	518	33.0%
	Democrat	612	39.4%	495	31.5%
	Independent	368	23.7%	383	24.4%
	Another Party	38	2.4%	35	2.2%
	No Preference	201	13.0%	139	8.9%
Household Income	$0 – $24,999	211	13.6%	192	12.2%
	$25,000 – $49,999	329	21.2%	290	18.5%
	$50,000 – $74,999	314	20.2%	309	19.7%
	$75,000 – $99,999	241	15.5%	238	15.1%
	$100,000 – $124,999	142	9.1%	161	10.3%
	$125,000 – $149,999	93	6.0%	110	7.0%
	$150,000 or more	218	14.0%	265	16.9%
	Refused	4	0.3%	6	0.4%
Employment Status	Employed Full-time (36+ hrs/week)	817	52.6%	747	47.5%
	Unemployed	105	6.8%	108	6.9%
	Retired	312	20.1%	382	24.3%
	Student only	35	2.3%	34	2.2%
	Student also employed	25	1.6%	31	2.0%
	Full-time homemaker	63	4.1%	74	4.7%
	Employed Part-time (<36 hrs/week)	138	8.9%	139	8.9%
	Other	57	3.7%	56	3.6%
	Disabled/Handicapped	0	0.0%	0	0.0%
Children in Household	No children	971	62.6%	1088	69.2%
	1 child	258	16.6%	221	14.1%
	2 children	181	11.7%	150	9.5%
	3 or more children	141	9.1%	111	7.1%
	Refused	1	0.1%	1	0.1%

This research was conducted through the Collaborative on Media and Messaging for Health and Social Policy and included contributions from Drs. Jamila Michener, Sarah Gollust, Jeff Niederdeppe, Norman Porticella, and Erika Franklin Fowler.

Support for this research was provided by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (grant #79754). The views expressed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the Foundation.