Fact Check: Mental Health Funding Cuts Can Negatively Impact Student Access to Mental Health Services
What We Know
Recent developments indicate that cuts to mental health funding can indeed have detrimental effects on student access to mental health services. In July 2025, New York Attorney General Letitia James, along with 15 other attorneys general, filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Education (ED) for terminating over $1 billion in federal funding aimed at school-based mental health services. This funding was crucial for programs like the Mental Health Service Professional Demonstration Grant Program (MHSP) and the School-Based Mental Health Services Grant Program (SBMH), which were established to address the growing youth mental health crisis and to provide essential services in schools, particularly in low-income and rural areas (Attorney General James Sues Trump Administration for Slashing Youth Mental Health Funding).
The lawsuit emphasizes that these funding cuts would lead to significant layoffs of mental health professionals in schools, thereby reducing the availability of critical mental health services for students. For instance, the State University of New York (SUNY) system alone could lose at least $19 million in funding, affecting thousands of students who rely on these services (Attorney General James Sues Trump Administration for Slashing Youth Mental Health Funding).
Moreover, a report from the Brookings Institution highlights that as federal funding for mental health professionals is cut, states are facing tough decisions that could widen gaps in care. The report notes that the pandemic exacerbated existing mental health issues among youth, with rates of depression and anxiety rising significantly prior to 2020 (Governors address youth mental health and well-being ...).
Analysis
The evidence presented in the lawsuit and the Brookings report strongly supports the claim that cuts to mental health funding negatively impact student access to mental health services. The lawsuit outlines measurable successes of the funding prior to its termination, including a significant reduction in student wait times for services and a decrease in suicide risk among students at high-need schools (Attorney General James Sues Trump Administration for Slashing Youth Mental Health Funding).
The credibility of the sources is high, as they come from official statements by state attorneys general and reputable research institutions. The Brookings Institution is well-regarded for its policy analysis, and its findings are supported by empirical data regarding youth mental health trends (Governors address youth mental health and well-being ...).
However, it is important to note that while the lawsuit and the Brookings report provide strong evidence of the negative impacts of funding cuts, the political context surrounding these cuts may introduce some bias. The attorneys general involved in the lawsuit are advocating for the reinstatement of funding, which may influence their framing of the issue. Nonetheless, the data on rising mental health issues among youth and the demonstrated benefits of the funding lend significant weight to the argument that cuts will harm student access to necessary services.
Conclusion
Verdict: True
The claim that mental health funding cuts can negatively impact student access to mental health services is supported by substantial evidence. The termination of over $1 billion in funding for school-based mental health programs is likely to lead to reduced availability of these essential services, as indicated by the lawsuit filed by Attorney General James and corroborated by research from the Brookings Institution. The potential consequences of these cuts, including layoffs of mental health professionals and diminished services for students, further affirm the validity of the claim.
