Negotiations on the political declaration have intensified this week, as the June 22-23 UN High-Level Meeting on HIV/AIDS inches closer. With a third-round draft due June 15, many advocates and delegations question whether consensus can be secured around diluted provisions on key populations, discriminatory laws, community leadership, human rights, and access to medicines. These differing positions by state and non-state actors could ultimately result in a vote on the declaration rather than adopting it by consensus. Advocates report that the text would replace commitments to repeal discriminatory laws with softer language encouraging countries to “review and change as appropriate”, while references to community-led responses and key populations have been weakened or removed in multiple sections. Financing is also a major point of contention, with advocates challenging the proposed $20.6 billion annual HIV financing target and the absence of language addressing official development assistance (ODA) despite calls from many countries.  
IMPLICATIONS: The negotiations come as the recent PEPFAR data and new analyses from the Clinton Health Access Initiative (CHAI) indicate continuing declines in HIV prevention implementation and service delivery. Advocates warn that a watered-down declaration could legitimize national government backsliding on human rights, community leadership, access to medicines and financing at the moment when concrete political commitments on the key provisions are most needed to make progress on international goals against the HIV epidemic. UN delegations and civil society are further debating whether no commitments on the current iteration of the declaration may be more advantageous and acceptable than a version that undermines human rights. In the final two weeks of negotiations, advocates are urgently encouraging partners to push their governments to have stronger human rights and key population language in the declaration. 

READ:  

• Plunging HIV Budgets Cast Dark Shadow Over UN High-Level Meeting—Health Policy Watch  
• Scientific Breakthroughs and Political Retreat Set the Stage for a Crucial Global Moment in the Fight Against HIV/AIDS—Global Dispatch 

The House Appropriations Committee this week voted to advance its Fiscal Year 2027 Labor, Health and Human Services (LHHS) funding bill, which would reduce HHS funding by approximately 4 percent, from $116.6 billion to $110.8 billion. The proposal includes significant reductions to public health programs, including $1 billion in cuts to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), much of it affecting HIV-related activities. During the markup, lawmakers approved a bipartisan amendment expressing concern over delays in National Institutes of Health (NIH) grant announcements and noting that available NIH grant funding is nearly 50 percent lower in FY2026 than it was in FY2024. The committee rejected amendments that would have blocked a proposed Office of Management and Budget (OMB) rule expanding political influence over federal grantmaking and protected NIH researchers from dismissal for political reasons. 

IMPLICATIONS: The markup of this bill reflects a continued shift in US research and science policy toward reduced federal investment in public health and greater political oversight of research and grantmaking. For the HIV field, the proposed cuts to CDC HIV activities come as the Administration promotes new prevention technologies and seeks to reshape PEPFAR and broader public health programs, raising concerns about the future capacity to deliver prevention, surveillance and implementation programs. At the same time, congressional concern over NIH grant delays underscores growing anxiety about the state of US biomedical research. The bill still has many steps to go in the legislative process before it becomes law, but it highlights significant headwinds for global health and research. 

READ: 

• How cuts to CDC are dismantling its capacity to protect Americans’ health—The Conversation 
• Trump administration has its sights set on destroying international research collaborations—BMJ  

Nearly 40 former and current staff at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) authored a new report, The Bethesda Declaration One Year Later, Continuing Harms to the NIH Mission, which outlines nine deepening concerns at the NIH over the last year along with proposed solutions. This report comes one year after hundreds of NIH employees accused the Administration of politicizing biomedical research through the original Bethesda Declaration. The new report notes that the Administration is slowing medical research, disrupting international collaborations, weakening ethical safeguards, driving away experienced staff and undermining public trust in science. Approximately 24% fewer NIH research projects were funded in 2025 than in 2024 and more than 5,500 peer-reviewed grants were terminated. The report also warns that the White House's proposed Office of Management and Budget (OMB) rule, which would subject federal grants to greater political review and require alignment with presidential priorities, would institutionalize many of the changes researchers have opposed in the last year. 

IMPLICATIONS: The updated Bethesda Declaration shows growing concern from the scientific community about the politicization of science. The NIH has served as the foundation of HIV research, from supporting basic science, vaccine development, implementation of new prevention technologies and global research partnerships. As political oversight expands and international collaboration is deconstructed, the US risks undermining the scientific infrastructure that has fueled decades of innovation and partnership. 

READ: 

• NIH’s destruction continues, Bethesda Declaration signers say—Science  
• NIH Scientists Issue ‘Bethesda Declaration’ to Protest Research Politicization—The Scientist 
• The Bethesda Declaration: A Call for NIH and HHS Leadership to Deliver on Promises of Academic Freedom and Scientific Excellence—Stand Up For Science 
• ‘A deliberate crippling’: NIH researchers, Mass. scientists sound alarm over new funding rules—Boston Globe 
• The Bethesda Declaration: One Year Later. Continuing Harms to the NIH Mission—27UNIHTED 
• NIH staffers published a letter of dissent a year ago. They feel it’s been ignored—STAT  

Several prominent diabetes researchers were removed from the American Diabetes Association (ADA) annual scientific meeting for distributing paper copies of an editorial (published in the Association’s own journal) that criticized the Trump administration’s attacks on research, funding and academic freedom. The incident sparked widespread backlash across the scientific community, with thousands of researchers signing an open letter condemning the ADA's actions as a failure to defend scientific independence and free expression. The chief executive of the ADA issued a public apology for removing researchers from the conference noting that the ADA is commissioning an independent review of the incident. 

IMPLICATIONS: Scientific progress has traditionally depended on peer review, open debate, international collaboration and the ability of researchers to challenge policy decisions without fear of retaliation. This event comes amid broader concerns about the Administration's proposed OMB rule that would significantly expand political oversight of federal research grants. Scientific independence is moving beyond funding cuts and into control of scientific inquiry. This shift will have lasting consequences for HIV prevention, vaccine development, outbreak preparedness and broader research. 

READ:

• Diabetes Association in uproar after members expelled from annual meeting over protest of NIH cuts—STAT  
• Diabetes society apologizes after removal of Trump protesters from conference sparks outrage—Science  
• Police Remove Diabetes Experts from Conference For Distributing Critique of Trump Administration—New York Times