Skip to main content
Guttmacher Institute

Search

  • X
  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • Youtube
  • LinkedIn
  • Contact

Highlights

  • Roe v. Wade Overturned
  • Reproductive Health Impact Study
  • Adding It Up
  • Abortion Worldwide
  • Guttmacher-Lancet Commission
  • Monthly Abortion Provision Study
  • US policy resources
  • State policy resources
  • State legislation tracker

Reports

  • Global
  • United States

Articles

  • Global research
  • US research
  • Policy analysis
  • Guttmacher Policy Review
  • Opinion

Fact Sheets

  • Global
  • United States
  • US State Laws and Policies

Data, Videos & Visualizations

  • Data center
  • Videos
  • Infographics
  • Public-use data sets

Peer-reviewed Journals

  • International Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health (1975–2020)
  • Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health (1969–2020)

Global

  • Abortion
  • Contraception
  • HIV & STIs
  • Pregnancy
  • Teens

US

  • Abortion
  • Contraception
  • HIV & STIs
  • Pregnancy
  • Teens

Our Work by Geography

  • Global
  • Africa
  • Asia
  • Europe
  • Latin America & the Caribbean
  • Northern America
  • Oceania

Who We Are

  • About
  • Staff
  • Board
  • Job opportunities
  • Newsletter
  • History
  • Contact
  • Conflict of Interest Policy

Media

  • Media office
  • News releases

Support Our Work

  • Make a gift today
  • Monthly Giving Circle
  • Ways to Give
  • Guttmacher Guardians
  • Guttmacher Legacy Circle
  • Financials
  • 2024 Impact Report

Awards & Scholarships

  • Darroch Award
  • Richards Scholarship
  • Bixby Fellowship
Donate
Guttmacher Institute
Donate

Highlights

  • Roe v. Wade Overturned
  • Reproductive Health Impact Study
  • Adding It Up
  • Abortion Worldwide
  • Guttmacher-Lancet Commission
  • Monthly Abortion Provision Study
  • US policy resources
  • State policy resources
  • State legislation tracker

Reports

  • Global
  • United States

Articles

  • Global research
  • US research
  • Policy analysis
  • Guttmacher Policy Review
  • Opinion

Fact Sheets

  • Global
  • United States
  • US State Laws and Policies

Data, Videos & Visualizations

  • Data center
  • Videos
  • Infographics
  • Public-use data sets

Peer-reviewed Journals

  • International Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health (1975–2020)
  • Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health (1969–2020)

Global

  • Abortion
  • Contraception
  • HIV & STIs
  • Pregnancy
  • Teens

US

  • Abortion
  • Contraception
  • HIV & STIs
  • Pregnancy
  • Teens

Our Work by Geography

  • Global
  • Africa
  • Asia
  • Europe
  • Latin America & the Caribbean
  • Northern America
  • Oceania

Who We Are

  • About
  • Staff
  • Board
  • Job opportunities
  • Newsletter
  • History
  • Contact
  • Conflict of Interest Policy

Media

  • Media office
  • News releases

Support Our Work

  • Make a gift today
  • Monthly Giving Circle
  • Ways to Give
  • Guttmacher Guardians
  • Guttmacher Legacy Circle
  • Financials
  • 2024 Impact Report

Awards & Scholarships

  • Darroch Award
  • Richards Scholarship
  • Bixby Fellowship
Donate
  • X
  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • Youtube
  • LinkedIn
  • Contact
Fact Sheet
February 2025

Challenges to the Title X Program

From the series Title X: A Federal Reproductive Health Program
Features and Benefits of the Title X Program
Challenges to the Title X Program

Since the disruptions of the 2019 Title X Final Rule and the COVID-19 pandemic, Title X providers and clinics have been working hard to regain stability and fully serve their communities. Under a presidential administration hostile to sexual and reproductive health and rights, policies such as reinstating the Final Rule or cutting funding once again threaten the program’s stability and core mission of providing equitable reproductive health care and preventive health care to underserved populations. The program could face erosion of provider networks, regressive regulations and broader ideological attacks that could limit the delivery of reproductive health services to marginalized communities.1 However, there are steps policymakers can take to address Title X’s funding challenges and protect the program from further attacks.

Funding Gaps

Title X has faced long-standing challenges because of chronic underfunding and ongoing attempts to defund the program entirely.2 Congress has funded Title X at approximately $286 million annually, which has not increased since 2015.3 In a recent study, federal agencies indicated that Title X would require $1.38 billion annually to adequately serve patients.4 With flat funding from Congress and inflation, this gap has continued to grow, further exacerbated by the increasing demand for family planning services.3 This funding gap has significantly constrained the program’s ability to expand services to meet growing demand. Current funding levels are also inadequate to maintain current service levels, especially in the wake of increased restrictions on reproductive health care following the 2022 US Supreme Court decision (Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization) that revoked the federal constitutional right to abortion.

Damage to Title X Under the Domestic Gag Rule

The Trump-Pence administration’s 2019 Title X Final Rule, or “domestic gag rule,” destabilized the Title X program, undermining its ability to provide comprehensive reproductive health care.5 While in effect from 2019 to 2021, the rule prohibited abortion referrals and mandated that all pregnant patients receive referrals to prenatal care; required Title X grant recipients to physically and financially separate funded services from any abortion-related activities, including referrals and counseling; and redefined “family planning” to include abstinence, adoption and fertility awareness–based methods.

The negative effects were both immediate and far-reaching. Between 2019 and 2020, the number of patients served by Title X clinics dropped dramatically, from 3.1 million to 1.5 million. According to the Office of Population Affairs, 63% of this decrease was directly tied to the implementation of the domestic gag rule; disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic were responsible for the remaining 37% decrease.6 Entire states (Hawaii, Maine, Oregon, Utah, Vermont and Washington) had no Title X–funded clinics for nearly two years, while 11 additional states had dramatic reductions in the number of available providers.7

Research revealed that the domestic gag rule affected both clinics that chose to stay and those that left the Title X network, limiting their services and provision of person-centered care beyond what was dictated by the policy.8 Not surprisingly, this research also found that the gag rule’s restrictions trickled down and negatively impacted individuals’ experiences with care. These harmful effects fundamentally undermined Title X’s core mission of ensuring access to a broad range of family planning services.

Rebuilding the Title X Network 

While the Biden-Harris administration reversed the gag rule in 2021, the damage to the Title X network still lingers. Despite slow but steady gains in the number of people being served since the low point in 2020, access to comprehensive care remains fragile in many places, with significant gaps in service availability due to lingering provider hesitancy and operational disruptions.5

The 2019 domestic gag rule led to declines in patients and clinics

Source: Killewald P et al., 2023 Family Planning Annual Report: National Summary, Washington, DC: OPA, HHS, 2023, https://opa.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/2024-10/2023-FPAR-National-Summ….

Potential Effects of Gag Rule Reinstatement

If reinstated, the domestic gag rule would once again force Title X–funded clinics into a difficult position: either refuse federal funding or forgo their ability to provide patients with the comprehensive, patient-centered care that they would otherwise provide. The harm of reinstating the rule would extend beyond immediate service disruptions. By restricting referrals for abortion, the rule compromises the principle of person-centered care and erodes trust between patients and health care professionals. Restrictions on reproductive health care undermine reproductive autonomy, further deepening existing disparities in health outcomes, particularly for those in marginalized groups who already encounter systemic barriers to health care access.8 Ultimately, reinstating the domestic gag rule would exacerbate existing disparities in reproductive health outcomes and undermine the equitable delivery of care that Title X was designed to provide.

Actionable Steps to Secure Title X in a Changing Landscape

Title X faces many new and ongoing threats. In order to meet those threats and emerge stronger in the future, policymakers must address funding challenges and protect the program from further attacks that would weaken it. Rather than constraining the reach of Title X, policymakers should take decisive action to strengthen Title X and its ability to ensure equitable access to health care.

  • Congress must fully fund Title X to enable the program to meet the growing demand for affordable, high-quality reproductive health services. At the same time, anticipating potential federal funding cuts, states should commit to bridging funding gaps with their own funds to ensure that essential services continue uninterrupted even if federal resources fall short.
  • The Trump-Vance administration and Congress should resist efforts to reinstate harmful policies such as the domestic gag rule, which undermined provider-patient communication and forced many clinics out of the Title X network.
  • Policymakers should pass right to contraception legislation at both the federal and state levels in order to safeguard reproductive autonomy.9 Legislation would ensure universal access to birth control options, independent of political shifts or judicial decisions that threaten to limit reproductive rights.
  • Ensure that person-centered care remains a cornerstone of Title X’s mission, thus respecting individuals’ autonomy, preferences and needs.

1. Bernstein A, Friedrich-Karnik A and Damavandi S, How Project 2025 seeks to obliterate sexual and reproductive health and rights, Fact Sheet, New York: Guttmacher Institute, 2024, www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/how-project-2025-seeks-obliterate-srhr.

2. Dawson R, What federal policymakers must do to restore and strengthen the Title X family planning program, Guttmacher Policy Review, 2021, 24:22–28, www.guttmacher.org/gpr/2021/03/what-federal-policymakers-must-do-restore-and-strengthen-title-x-family-planning-program.

3. Frederiksen B, Gomez I and Salganicoff A, Rebuilding the Title X Network Under the Biden Administration, KFF, 2023, https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/issue-brief/rebuilding-the-title-x-network-under-the-biden-administration/.

4. Gorzig MM, Goesling B and Schellenberger K, The need for free or subsidized sexual and reproductive health services in the U.S.: updated estimates, Office of Population Affairs (OPA), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), 2024, https://opa.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/2024-12/opa-cost-study-srh-services.pdf.

5. Friedrich-Karnik A and Easter R, Restricting Title X results in cascading harms, Policy Analysis, New York: Guttmacher Institute, 2024, https://www.guttmacher.org/2024/08/restricting-title-x-results-cascadin….

6. Fowler CI, Gable J and Lasater B, Family Planning Annual Report: 2020 National Summary, Washington, DC: OPA, HHS, 2021, https://opa.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/2021-09/title-x-fpar-2020-national-summary-sep-2021.pdf.

7. Dawson R, Trump administration's domestic gag rule has slashed the Title X network’s capacity by half, Policy Analysis, New York: Guttmacher Institute, 2020, www.guttmacher.org/article/2020/02/trump-administrations-domestic-gag-r….

8. Easter R, Friedrich-Karnik A and Kavanaugh ML, Any Restrictions on Reproductive Health Care Harm Reproductive Autonomy: Evidence from Four States, New York: Guttmacher Institute, 2024, https://www.guttmacher.org/report/any-restrictions-reproductive-health-care-harm-reproductive-autonomy-evidence-four-states.

9. Lord-Biggers M and Curhan T, The right to contraception in the United States, Fact Sheet, New York: Guttmacher Institute, 2024, https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/right-to-contraception-in-us.

References

1. Bernstein A, Friedrich-Karnik A and Damavandi S, How Project 2025 seeks to obliterate sexual and reproductive health and rights, Fact Sheet, New York: Guttmacher Institute, 2024, www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/how-project-2025-seeks-obliterate-srhr.

2. Dawson R, What federal policymakers must do to restore and strengthen the Title X family planning program, Guttmacher Policy Review, 2021, 24:22–28, www.guttmacher.org/gpr/2021/03/what-federal-policymakers-must-do-restore-and-strengthen-title-x-family-planning-program.

3. Frederiksen B, Gomez I and Salganicoff A, Rebuilding the Title X Network Under the Biden Administration, KFF, 2023, https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/issue-brief/rebuilding-the-title-x-network-under-the-biden-administration/.

4. Gorzig MM, Goesling B and Schellenberger K, The need for free or subsidized sexual and reproductive health services in the U.S.: updated estimates, Office of Population Affairs (OPA), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), 2024, https://opa.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/2024-12/opa-cost-study-srh-services.pdf.

5. Friedrich-Karnik A and Easter R, Restricting Title X results in cascading harms, Policy Analysis, New York: Guttmacher Institute, 2024, https://www.guttmacher.org/2024/08/restricting-title-x-results-cascadin….

6. Fowler CI, Gable J and Lasater B, Family Planning Annual Report: 2020 National Summary, Washington, DC: OPA, HHS, 2021, https://opa.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/2021-09/title-x-fpar-2020-national-summary-sep-2021.pdf.

7. Dawson R, Trump administration's domestic gag rule has slashed the Title X network’s capacity by half, Policy Analysis, New York: Guttmacher Institute, 2020, www.guttmacher.org/article/2020/02/trump-administrations-domestic-gag-r….

8. Easter R, Friedrich-Karnik A and Kavanaugh ML, Any Restrictions on Reproductive Health Care Harm Reproductive Autonomy: Evidence from Four States, New York: Guttmacher Institute, 2024, https://www.guttmacher.org/report/any-restrictions-reproductive-health-care-harm-reproductive-autonomy-evidence-four-states.

9. Lord-Biggers M and Curhan T, The right to contraception in the United States, Fact Sheet, New York: Guttmacher Institute, 2024, https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/right-to-contraception-in-us.

Acknowledgments

Managi Lord-Biggers and Amy Friedrich-Karnik

It was edited by Chris Olah.

From the series Title X: A Federal Reproductive Health Program

Share

Reproductive rights are under attack. Will you help us fight back with facts?

Donate

Read More

Fact Sheet

Features and Benefits of the Title X Program

Resource

Reproductive Health Impact Study

Policy Analysis

Restricting Title X Results in Cascading Harms

State Laws and Policies

Insurance Coverage of Contraceptives

Resource

Interactive Map: US Abortion Policies and Access After Roe

Topic

United States

  • Abortion: Insurance Coverage
  • Contraception: Publicly Funded Family Planning

Geography

  • Northern America: United States

Tags

Title X
Guttmacher Institute

Center facts. Shape policy.
Advance sexual and reproductive rights.

Donate Now
Newsletter Signup  Contact Us 
  • X
  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • Youtube
  • LinkedIn
  • Contact

Footer

  • Privacy Policy
  • Accessibility Statement
© 2025 Guttmacher Institute. The Guttmacher Institute is registered as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization under the tax identification number 13-2890727. Contributions are tax deductible to the fullest extent allowable.