Trump’s New Women’s Health Initiative Raises Questions About Funding and Priorities

Marist's Allied Health Building, where Dr. Padmavati Garvey serves as a clinical assistant professor. Photo by Seilah Quinones '28

President Donald Trump signed an executive order on Oct. 19 establishing a new Women’s Health Division within the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and a White House Women’s Health Task Force. The initiative aims to expand research into conditions affecting women and improve health outcomes throughout their lives.

The executive order, titled “Advancing Women’s Health to Improve Outcomes in All Phases of Life” directs the Department of Health and Human Services to establish the new division within 90 days. Its research will focus on conditions that uniquely or disproportionately affect women, including endometriosis, infertility, maternal health and menopause. 

The division will work alongside the NIH Office of Research on Women’s Health, which was established in 1990. It is also expected to strengthen oversight of federally funded studies and help move scientific discoveries into clinical practice, with the goal of improving how conditions affecting women are diagnosed and treated.

The order also marks a shift in federal policy by revoking two previous actions on women’s health research, including a 2023 initiative launched under former President Joe Biden. The Biden administration said that initiative had attracted nearly $1 billion in federal funding.

Dr. Padmavati Garvey, clinical assistant professor at Marist University and board-certified obstetrician/gynecologist, said the initiative’s impact will depend on whether it is backed by concrete action.

“If I understand it correctly, the new women’s health initiative has no funding. That alone says it all. It is all words, no action. Talking points, but no plan,” said Garvey.

Although the executive order outlines research priorities, it does not specify a dedicated funding amount for the NIH division, raising questions about how those priorities will be put into practice.

Garvey also questioned the health care system’s emphasis on medical interventions over disease prevention.

“Our current system rewards ‘doing’ rather than ‘preventing’; it rewards prescriptions and tests and procedures and not counseling patients,” she said.

Her comments point to a challenge beyond funding: ensuring that advances in research lead to meaningful changes in how women receive care. New findings can improve the understanding and treatment of conditions affecting women, but their impact also depends on whether patients can access appropriate preventive services and treatments.

Garvey further emphasized the importance of reproductive health care in allowing women to make decisions about their futures. 

“Women need to be able to plan whether or not and when they want to have children. Unfettered access to reliable, safe birth control is one important factor that determines a woman’s professional, academic and economic potential,” she said.

The new division’s impact will depend on more than the research it supports. Its progress will also be reflected in whether that research leads to earlier diagnoses, better treatment options and improvements in the care women receive. 

With no dedicated funding amount specified in the order, questions remain about how the administration will turn its stated priorities into lasting changes in women’s health.