Antiracism in Public Health Act

Summary#

S. 1489, the Anti-Racism in Public Health Act of 2025, would amend the Public Health Service Act. Its stated goal is to support public health research and investment into understanding and eliminating structural racism and police violence. It is an introduced bill, not law; whether it will pass is uncertain.

  • It would create the National Center on Antiracism and Health within the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The CDC director would appoint its head, who must have experience living in and working with racial and ethnic minority communities.
  • The center would be required to research racism’s effects on health; collect, analyze, and publish data; award noncompetitive grants to eligible public and nonprofit entities; and establish at least three regional centers of excellence in racial and ethnic minority communities.
  • The center would also establish a CDC data clearinghouse where no existing CDC surveillance system covers the data. Data must be public, protect individual privacy, and be disaggregated by listed characteristics to the extent practicable. The center must consult with Tribes and respect Tribal data sovereignty.
  • The Health and Human Services Secretary would establish a law enforcement violence prevention program within an existing CDC center. It would research law-enforcement uses of force and their health effects, fund research and interventions, coordinate data standards with government agencies, and study alternatives to law-enforcement responses.
  • The program must report to Congress annually; the antiracism center must publish a report at least every two years.

What it means for you#

  • Members of the public: The bill would require public information and data on racism and health, and on law-enforcement uses of force and their health effects. It would not directly change police powers, create a new individual right or remedy, or require police departments to adopt specific practices.
  • Public health and research organizations: The bill would direct the CDC center to award noncompetitive grants and the violence prevention program to award grants, contracts, and cooperative agreements for research. It does not set application rules, award criteria, or timelines.
  • State, local, territorial, and Tribal health agencies and organizations: These are among the entities eligible for grants from the antiracism center. The bill also directs consultation with Tribes and government-to-government consultation with Indian Tribes and Tribal organizations.
  • CDC and federal officials: They would have new research, grant-making, data, consultation, education, coordination, and reporting duties. The new antiracism center would be a division within the CDC, not an independent agency. The violence prevention program would sit within an existing CDC center.

Money#

The bill authorizes Congress to provide whatever sums may be necessary, but gives no cost estimate or fixed funding amount.

  • The bill authorizes funding for both the antiracism center and the law-enforcement violence prevention program; it does not itself appropriate a specific amount.
  • The bill requires grant-making and other activities, but does not state staffing levels or their cost.

What is unclear#

  • The Public Health Service Act text was not supplied, so it is not possible to verify what research, data collection, or programs already exist under current law.
  • The bill does not set a start date, implementation schedule, grant rules, or measures of success.
  • It does not define several important terms, including “structural racism,” “police violence,” and “racial equity.” It defines “antiracism” and “antiracist,” but does not explain how those standards would be applied to particular research or interventions.
  • The bill does not specify how the centers would decide what data to collect, beyond listed categories and privacy requirements, or how the research findings would lead to changes in practice.
  • The amount and timing of any funding would depend on future appropriations.

Case for#

  • A possible argument for the bill is that research, public data, and consistent data standards could help identify health effects and assess which interventions work.
  • The bill would support research by state, local, Tribal, community, and academic organizations, and require consultation with Tribes on matters affecting them.
  • Studying alternatives to law-enforcement responses could give public health agencies evidence to consider when addressing deaths, injuries, trauma, and mental health effects.

Case against#

  • The bill requires research and recommendations but does not require police departments or other institutions to adopt any resulting practices. The practical effect may therefore depend on later decisions and funding.
  • The bill creates broad duties without defining some central terms or setting grant criteria, timelines, or detailed oversight rules. That leaves important implementation choices open.
  • The bill authorizes funding without estimating its cost. The scale of the required research, data systems, grants, and staffing—and their cost to the federal government—remains unknown.