RFK Jr.'s soaring bodyguard costs covered with money for fighting infant deaths: WSJ

Bennito L. Kelty
September 22, 2026 
RAW STORY


FILE PHOTO: U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. speaks during an event on screen time harm in children at the Department of Health and Human Services in Washington, D.C., U.S., September 1, 2026. REUTERS/Evan Vucci/File Photo

Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s ballooning security costs were partly covered by money from an office created to fight Black infant deaths.

According to a Wall Street Journal article published on Tuesday, the Department of Health and Human Services told congressional appropriators earlier this year that it was shifting about $12 million from its Office of Minority Health to help pay for Kennedy's protection. The Journal cited people familiar with the matter and a document it reviewed.

According to The Journal's sources, Kennedy's security costs rose from roughly $10 million in fiscal 2025 to $17 million in fiscal 2026. Those sources said protection for previous HHS secretaries ran about $5 million a year.

The sources also told The Journal that the secretary's office had a large pool of discretionary money it could have used instead. The report said HHS took $12 million from the minority health office, well above the roughly $7 million rise in security costs, partly because the secretary's office has been hit by across-the-board budget cuts.

The Office of Minority Health dates to the Reagan administration and was created after a landmark report found that Black infants in the U.S. were more likely than white infants to die. It also found that Black Americans had shorter life expectancies. The office has an annual budget of about $74 million and has funded research and programs aimed at closing those gaps, according to The Journal.

In August, HHS notified 16 nonprofits and universities that their grants from the office had been canceled, citing "limited" funding and new priorities. The department said the office would now focus on "the root causes of infertility and reproductive health conditions" and on promoting physical activity.

The Journal reported that HHS spent about $9 million on the programs last year. They provided fresh vegetables, chronic disease screenings, and at-home nurse visits for new mothers in low-income communities.

HHS spokeswoman Emily Hilliard told The Journal that the grant cuts "reflect HHS priorities and programmatic assessments" rather than the secretary's security needs.

"Secretary Kennedy faces a security environment that differs significantly from that of previous HHS secretaries," Hilliard said. She added that his protection reflects the threats against him, his extensive travel, and what he needs to do his job safely, per The Journal.

Two ‘Russian’ Elections Whose Outcome Really Matters: South Ossetia And Udmurtia – Analysis




By Paul Goble

Key Takeaways:

The author says Russia’s latest Duma vote did what the Kremlin wanted: opposition was barred and United Russia kept a rubber-stamp majority Putin can call a mandate for the Ukraine war.

Two quieter votes may matter more. In South Ossetia, Moscow-backed Marat Kambolov—an official from North Ossetia—won the presidency after a deeper cooperation pact and a sacked local governor, which the piece reads as a step toward annexation if Russia loses leverage in Armenia, even though Tbilisi and the world still formally oppose border changes.

In Udmurtia, émigrés and locals used an anonymous online ballot to pick a 10-member opposition assembly under journalist Andrey Grigoryev, reviving a 1990 sovereignty line for all peoples of the republic. Moscow faces a cross-ethnic protest vote; other émigré groups face a test of who can claim to speak for a region.

The outcome of Russia’s latest Duma “election” has been as expected. The Kremlin banned opposition figures from taking part, whose presence might have cost the ruling United Russia Party its constitutional majority. As a result, the Kremlin has gotten almost precisely what it sought. The elections resulted in an even more tightly controlled Russian parliament that will rubber-stamp whatever Russian President Vladimir Putin asks for. He will use these results to claim the legitimacy of his regime and overwhelming Russian popular support for his war against Ukraine (e.g., CNN, September 21).

Because the Duma vote involved all of Russia and because the Kremlin trumpeted its supposed importance, the just-completed Russian vote unsurprisingly attracted enormous attention both in Russia and abroad. Two other “Russian” elections held at the same time, though they drew far less attention, appear set to prove more fateful. First, a Kremlin-backed Russian citizen was elected as president of South Ossetia, the Georgian breakaway territory Moscow helped wrest from Tbilisi in 2008 (OC Media, September 9; Vot Tak, September 19; Kavkazskiy Uzel, September 20; RITM Eurasia, September 21). Second, an opposition assembly in the Udmurt Republic in Russia’s Middle Volga region was selected via a secure internet channel (Region.Expert, September 18; Udmurtia, accessed September 22). The first sets the stage for Russia’s annexation of South Ossetia, and the second challenges the Kremlin by laying the groundwork for a legitimate alternative to Moscow’s rule there, as well as for opponents of Putin’s rule in emigration who do not move to organize similar bodies in similar ways.

After Putin invaded Georgia in 2008, South Ossetia along with Abkhazia became partially recognized states, controlled, especially in the case of South Ossetia, by Moscow, and have diplomatic relations with only a handful of countries. Many expected Moscow would annex South Ossetia and join it to Russia’s North Ossetian republic just north of the border. That has not happened for at least three reasons. First, international opposition to border changes, including in the South Caucasus, continues (EXO FM, August 7). Second, Moscow wants to deepen its rapprochement with Georgia, a goal that could be compromised if it absorbed one or both breakaway republics (Svobodnaya Pressa, August 8). Third, the Russian government is getting almost everything it wants without the downsides of annexation and the other financial costs of doing so, including having a military base there (Window on Eurasia, June 12, 2024).


In recent months, significant changes appear to have set the stage for eventual annexation (see EDM, June 26). First, the international community, while still officially opposed to annexations, has shown through its response to Moscow’s moves against Ukraine and Donbas that it is not prepared to take action when and if they happen. Second, Georgia, while still opposed to annexation, has fewer choices than it did and might not end its cooperation with Moscow even if Russia annexed South Ossetia. Third, the Russian military base in South Ossetia has become vastly more important for Moscow given that Russia may soon lose its base in Armenia or be forced to reduce its size and capabilities to remain (see EDM, September 8; Window on Eurasia, September 19).

Since his actions began last spring, Putin has been seen as willing to move toward annexation. He signed a far more comprehensive cooperation agreement with Tskhinvali, giving Russia even more control over that republic. He sacked the governor and endorsed Marat Kambolov as his successor, an Ossetian from the north whose entire career has been in the Russian Federation. This is a step the Kremlin had never taken before, and it has now been formalized by the snap election in that republic on September 18 (OC Media, September 9; Vot Tak, September 19). While some observers expect that these moves reflect a desire by Putin only to clean up the increasingly troubled situation in the South Ossetian government, most view them as another step toward annexation. They argue, however, that the move may not be imminent, since Kambolov will have to gain control of the government there (OC Media, September 9).


Moscow and Kambolov may move more quickly toward annexation, especially if Moscow loses its base in Armenia. If so, that by itself would make the vote in South Ossetia more significant than the orchestrated elections in the Russian Federation.

If what is taking place in South Ossetia reflects Kremlin calculations and interests, another electoral development far removed from the North Caucasus does not. That is Udmurtia, a Middle Volga republic with a long history of resisting Moscow from the Russian Civil War to this day (Window on Eurasia, September 14, 2019, August 13, 2023, February 22, 2022). Its tradition in that regard is typically ignored because the republic is small, with only 1.5 million residents, two-thirds of whom are ethnically Russian and only one-fifth are ethnically Udmurt. These Finno-Ugric people are traditionally animist but are now counted by many as Russian Orthodox.

In recent years, Moscow has responded by repressing the Udmurt minority, arresting protesters and driving even more into emigration, where the Udmurts are increasingly active (Window on Eurasia, March 1). Instead of retreating into a narrow nationalism, however, that emigration has retained its internationalist positions. Last year, it reissued its 1990 declaration of sovereignty for all the peoples of the republic (Window on Eurasia, September 21, 2025). Last month, it planned to create an independent national assembly through an election on September 20 (Udmurtia, accessed September 22). That election, organized under the leadership of journalist Andrey Grigoryev, naturally had to be held online using a new internet technology that allows voters to remain anonymous (Region.Expert, September 18; OpaVote, accessed September 22).

Details about the election beyond a report that 10 members were elected to the assembly have not been announced (Facebook/Sergey Antonov, September 21). Still, the very fact that such an election was held to fill such a body represents a serious challenge to Moscow, as well as to émigré groups of ethnic Russians, individual national groups, or a combination of both. For Moscow, the challenge comes from individuals willing to stand as candidates and from the readiness of people both in the republic and in the emigration to vote in an election the Russian government opposes, all the more because it encourages Russians and non-Russians to work together against Moscow. For émigré groups, in turn, the challenge of what the Udmurts have done is almost equally great. Their action calls into question both the claims of groups without such a demonstration of backing to speak for their regions and republics and the unwillingness of many to reach across ethnic lines to seek greater freedom, autonomy, and even independence for their regions. As a result, this “Russian” election may also have a greater impact than the much-ballyhooed one for the new Duma.

This article was published at The Jamestown Foundation


About Paul Goble
Paul Goble is a longtime specialist on ethnic and religious questions in Eurasia. Most recently, he was director of research and publications at the Azerbaijan Diplomatic Academy. Earlier, he served as vice dean for the social sciences and humanities at Audentes University in Tallinn and a senior research associate at the EuroCollege of the University of Tartu in Estonia. He has served in various capacities in the U.S. State Department, the Central Intelligence Agency and the International Broadcasting Bureau as well as at the Voice of America and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Mr. Goble maintains the Window on Eurasia blog and can be contacted directly at paul.goble@gmail.com 
View all posts by Paul Goble →

The Udmurtia Republic, Russia Guide

 

Republicans Who Support War in Iran Are Giving Democrats Chance To Control Congress

by Rep. John J. Duncan, Jr. | Sep 21, 2026 | 

The three top headlines in the Sept. 18 Drudge Report said: “Blue Wave Builds, Dems 84% Chance to take House – 55% Senate, Weeks Before Midterms – EVERYTHING Getting More Expensive.”

Newsweek carried a story headlined “Texas Republicans Face ‘Generational Wipeout’ Amid Disastrous Polls.”

Many other publications, both in print and online, have reported that Republicans are running even or behind in states that have been safe for Republicans in the past.

And it is all because Israel’s Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, seems to have almost total control of the White House and Congress. His wish is our command. We are fighting Netanyahu’s war against Iran at great expense to U.S. taxpayers.

The American people, meanwhile, are disgusted about the big jumps in prices for gas, diesel fuel, food, and expected big increases in utility bills.

And most Americans are sick and tired of these forever wars being fought for Israel, and they were especially sickened by the killing and starvation of thousands of little children in Gaza.

President Trump was elected because he promised to put an end to foreign wars being fought for other countries. He promised to put America First.

In the early Spring of 2015, I was asked to speak to the Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce at the famous Willard Hotel in Washington. This was months before the then Mr. Trump started running for President.

At one point in my speech, I said: “It is long past the time we need to stop trying to run the whole world and start putting our own people and our own country first once again.”

I knew this was popular with middle and lower income people, but I was honestly very surprised by the strong ovation I got that day from upper income California executives, several of whom were connected to companies that did business internationally.

This Nation is now over 40 trillion in debt. We simply cannot afford this one trillion, five hundred billion Secretary Hegseth and the Pentagon want. Yet the Congress voted this past Wednesday to spend an additional $73 billion on this unpopular, unnecessary war in Iran.

Most of the votes came from Republicans, even though this war is really hurting our Party.

The late Charley Reese, a very plain spoken conservative columnist, was voted as the most popular columnist in a vote by more than 20,000 C-Span viewers in 1999. He summed things up best in columns he wrote about the war in Iraq that are even more applicable about our war in Iran today.

In 2002, he wrote: “The truth is this: The terrorist attacks against the United States are a direct result of our one-sided support of Israel’s oppression of the Palestinians. That’s it, pure and simple.”

He added: “the big pushers for war with Iraq (Iran) are the usual suspects—Americans with a long record of pretending to speak about America’s interests, when in fact they are pushing an Israeli agenda.”

In 2005, Reese wrote: “Propaganda aside, our actions have created the almost universal hostility toward the United States in the Arab world. Our actions have been to support Israel 100 percent while it kills and brutalizes the Palestinians and refuses to negotiate with them.”

Georgie Anne Geyer, who passed away in 2019, traveled the world as a foreign correspondent for the Chicago Daily News and was syndicated in 120 newspapers.

In 2003, she wrote: “Critics of the war against Iraq (Iran) have said since the beginning of the conflict that Americans, still strangely complacent about overseas wars being waged by a minority in their name, will inevitably come to a point where they will see they have to have a government that provides services at home, or one that seeks empire across the globe.”

Reprinted with permission form The Duncan Dispatch.

John James Duncan Jr. is an American politician who served as the U.S. representative for Tennessee’s 2nd congressional district from 1988 to 2019. A lawyer, former judge, and former long serving member of the Army National Guard, he is a member of the Republican Party.

 

CNN, MS NOW, POLITICO journalists denied access to the White House after Trump said he'd bar them

Copyright AP Photo

By Malek Fouda

Published on 20/09/2026 - EURONEWS

The White House Correspondents’ Association, led by Fox News’ Jacqui Heinrich called on the Trump administration to immediately restore access to the representatives of the media organisations it barred, arguing that the move sets a dangerous precedent for free speech.

Reporters from three major news organisations were denied access to the White House on Saturday, a day after US President Donald Trump said he was barring them because of reporting he found to be “fake news.”

The media outlets, CNN, MS NOW and Politico, have previously been targeted by the Republican president, particularly CNN, who Trump kicks his antics up a notch, regularly mocking their reporters and lambasting their authenticity.

CNN White House Reporter Betsy Klein holding up an empty card holder after having her credential confiscated following Trump's ban, Saturday, Sept. 19, 2026, in Washington Jose Luis Magana/AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana

The actions were a clear escalation of Trump’s long-running efforts — in the courts and through administrative action — to restrict news coverage by journalists he finds objectionable, and the latest test of First Amendment protections in the United States.

Trump said on Friday that he would ban all three outlets because of coverage he disliked.

White House reporters from the two cable networks — Betsy Klein of CNN and Akayla Gardner of MS NOW — both went live to report they’d been turned away, their press badges deactivated, when arriving for their jobs at the White House.

MS NOW White House reporter Akayla Gardner reports near the White House complex after being denied entry following Trump's ban, Saturday, Sept. 19, 2026, in Washingto Jose Luis Magana/AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana

Soon after, Politico said its White House reporter Cheyenne Haslett was also denied entry and had her badge confiscated. All three news outlets hinted at legal action.

“We will vigorously defend our First Amendment rights,” Politico Editor-in-Chief Jonathan Greenberger said in a statement to the Politico newsroom. A CNN statement said the network “will not be deflected from our duty to hold the government and other public bodies to account."

And MS NOW said it “intends to take any and all steps necessary to defend our First Amendment rights and the essential role of independent journalism in our democracy.”

In his second term, Trump and his administration have routinely punished certain media outlets, both in the courtroom and through regulatory action.

Politico White House reporter Cheyenne Haslett is pictured near the White House complex after having her credential revoked, Saturday, Sept. 19, 2026, in Washington Jose Luis Magana/AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana

Trump has also lashed out at individual reporters in person or over social media, sometimes in strikingly personal terms — insulting them in briefings, or in his recent speech at the White House Correspondents' Association dinner, where he called CNN’s Kailtan Collins “very dumb and unhappy”.

The White House Correspondents’ Association President Jacqui Heinrich called on the administration to immediately restore the three outlets' access.

“The implications extend beyond these organisations: a standard used to exclude one news outlet because of its coverage could be applied to any outlet in the future,” she said.

“The American people, through a free and independent press, must be able to scrutinise those elected to power, regardless of whether government officials view it favourably.”

The move follows the president’s decision last year to bar Associated Press reporters from the Oval Office, Air Force One and other events in retaliation for the news outlet’s decision not to follow his lead in changing the name of the Gulf of Mexico.

The AP said that it would note, when appropriate, that Trump had ordered the water body, which lies partially in Mexican and other waters, renamed the “Gulf of America.”

The US news agency filed a lawsuit against their barring, and the case remains ongoing.

Since returning to office, Trump has pursued other legal action against a variety of different outlets, including The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and the BBC.

His administration is also involved in a long-simmering confrontation involving ABC over renewal of its broadcast licenses.

The AP said on Saturday it supported the news organizations banned this week. In a statement, the news cooperative said: “No news organisation — or person — should be retaliated against by the government over the words they use.”

More Threats to the Freedom of Speech

by Andrew P. Napolitano | Sep 18, 2026 | 

The freedom of speech and of the press is not a gift bestowed by a president, Congress or a federal agency. It is a natural right of all persons. The First Amendment does not create that right; it prohibits the government from infringing upon it. The ability to think, speak, write, criticize, ridicule, persuade, offend, dissent and challenge those in government is among the most fundamental preconditions of the exercise of human liberty.

It is also indispensable to personal happiness. A person who cannot speak his mind, question authority, express unpopular ideas or tell the government that it is wrong is not fully free. And free speech is essential to the survival of the republic because a government that cannot be criticized cannot be effectively held accountable.

Today, government power is being brought to bear against institutions, journalists and universities because their speech is considered objectionable by the president and his political allies.

This is hardly the first time an American administration has made that mistake.

During World War I, Congress enacted the Espionage Act of 1917 and the Sedition Act of 1918, which criminalized public criticism of the war; Woodrow Wilson used both to punish speech. The lesson is enduring: Once government convinces itself that national unity or security requires suppressing dissent, the category of supposedly dangerous speech can expand with frightening speed.

After Pearl Harbor, Franklin D. Roosevelt established an Office of Censorship and explicitly defended wartime censorship as necessary to national security. More dramatically, he authorized military commanders to impose speech and travel restrictions on designated areas in the U.S., ultimately facilitating the forced removal and incarceration of Japanese Americans, a suppression of speech and travel on an enormous scale that was ignominiously approved by the Supreme Court.

In the aftermath of 9/11, the government dramatically expanded surveillance and investigative authority through the so-called Patriot Act and the National Security Agency’s warrantless surveillance programs. The George W. Bush administration defended those measures as necessary to protect Americans while insisting that somehow civil liberties remained protected, an insistence few believed or cared about.

In all of these cases, the government used the same concept as its trigger — emergency — since so-called emergencies are the times when constitutional liberties are most likely to be treated as obstacles rather than boundaries.

The government is not omnipotent. There are areas of human behavior forbidden to it. Speech is foremost among those areas.

Universities are supposed to be places where ideas compete, including ideas that many people find offensive, foolish, repugnant or dangerous. The constitutional answer to bad ideas in a free society is more speech — not government coercion.

Yet the Trump administration has pursued universities over a range of controversies involving protests, diversity policies and alleged dangerous speech, using investigations and the withholding or threatened withholding of federal funding as leverage.

There is a legitimate governmental interest in protecting students from actual harassment and violence. But that authority cannot constitutionally become a back door through which the federal government decides which political, academic or ideological viewpoints universities may tolerate.

The First Amendment becomes meaningless if universities are told that their free speech is contingent on pleasing the government.

The same principle applies to broadcasting.

The Federal Communications Commission — an unconstitutional and authoritarian New Deal vestige — possesses substantial regulatory authority over broadcasters, which makes political retaliation particularly dangerous. The FCC has undertaken investigations and an early review of eight ABC-owned broadcast licenses. ABC and Disney have credibly alleged that these proceedings constitute retaliation for programming and editorial decisions that the administration dislikes.

But government does not need to issue an explicit threat to chill speech. If a broadcaster reasonably fears that criticism of the president could trigger a burdensome investigation, license challenge or regulatory punishment, the constitutional problem can arise before any government official formally prohibits a single word.

That’s the irony of censorship: Those who suppress criticism usually believe they are protecting something more important. Wilson invoked wartime necessity. Roosevelt invoked national security. Bush invoked terrorism. Today’s administration invokes bias, discrimination, misinformation, ideological imbalance or institutional misconduct.

The vocabulary changes. The temptation does not.

A genuine understanding of free speech must reject the idea that constitutional liberties belong only to people who say things of which the government approves.

Free speech protects the dissenter. It protects the radical. It protects the journalist who gets under the president’s skin. It protects the professor whose political opinions infuriate half the campus. It protects the student who says something unpopular. It protects the broadcaster whose editorial judgment the government considers irresponsible. It even protects speech that is objectively hateful, foul or contemptible.

The test of government fidelity to the Constitution is not whether the government protects popular speech. The test is whether it protects all speech.

That’s why the question is larger than Donald Trump. Presidents come and go. Political majorities change. Today’s censored opinion can become tomorrow’s majority position, and today’s majority can become tomorrow’s dissident minority.

The Framers understood that government cannot be trusted with the authority to determine which ideas Americans may express. Once that authority exists, every administration inherits it — and eventually someone will use it.

So the proper response is not to ask whether Trump’s targets deserve protection. The proper question is whether any administration should possess the power to punish persons because of what they think and say. The Constitution’s answer is: NO.

Freedom of speech is not a luxury. It is not a public relations principle. It is not something that disappears whenever a president becomes angry, a war begins, a university tolerates controversy, or a government agency decides that the public has been exposed to too much dissent.

It is a natural right.

It is a condition of personal freedom and human happiness.

And without the ability to say whatever we want to the government, the republic eventually ceases and becomes an empire.

Andrew P. Napolitano, a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, is the senior judicial analyst at Fox News Channel. Judge Napolitano has written seven books on the US Constitution. The most recent is Suicide Pact: The Radical Expansion of Presidential Powers and the Lethal Threat to American Liberty. To find out more about Judge Napolitano and to read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit www.creators.com. COPYRIGHT 2025 ANDREW P. NAPOLITANO – DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM

 

Cardiovascular disease tops cancer as leading cause of death among Hispanic adults in U.S.

Hispanic adults face unique cardiovascular health challenges that require culturally relevant prevention and care strategies, according to a new American Heart Association scientific statement

American Heart Association

Facebook

XLinkedInWeChatBlueskyMessageWhatsAppEmail

Statement Highlights:

• Cardiovascular disease has replaced cancer as the leading cause of death among Hispanic adults in the U.S., according to a new scientific statement from the American Heart Association.
• Hispanic people experience health risk factors at younger ages than other populations and they face many social conditions that influence health, including access to care, language services, healthy foods and safe places to be physically active.
• The statement highlights the urgent need for culturally relevant prevention strategies, equitable access to care and greater representation of Hispanic populations in cardiovascular research.

DALLAS, Sept. 15, 2026 — Cardiovascular disease has surpassed cancer as the leading cause of death among Hispanic adults in the U.S., driven by rising rates of obesity, diabetes, high blood pressure and other risk factors that often begin earlier in life for Hispanic people. A new scientific statement from the American Heart Association reveals how social, economic cultural and environmental factors contribute to persistent disparities in cardiovascular health and calls for culturally tailored prevention strategies, equitable access to care and greater representation of Hispanic populations in cardiovascular research. The statement is published today in the Association's flagship journal, Circulation.

Hispanic people represent nearly 1 in 5 of the U.S. population and are the nation's largest ethnic minority group, yet many continue to face barriers to achieving heart health and accessing high quality healthcare. The statement also highlights important differences among Hispanic populations, including those born in the U.S. versus other countries and even among specific Hispanic heritage backgrounds, including those of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Dominican, Central American and South American descent.

That’s why the chair of the scientific statement’s volunteer writing group, Johanna Contreras, M.D., M.Sc., FAHA, cautions that there is no one-size-fits-all approach to heart health for Hispanic communities.

“Hispanic populations in the U.S. are incredibly diverse even within their own communities with differences in genetic ancestry, language, cultural traditions and social experiences that can significantly influence cardiovascular health,” said Contreras, who is the director of the Division of Heart Failure and medical director of the Hispanic Heart Center within the Mount Sinai Health System in New York. “Yet Hispanic people remain underrepresented overall in the research that guides prevention and treatment strategies. More detailed data collection and reporting across Hispanic heritage backgrounds will be essential to better understand community-specific risks, strengths and healthcare needs. Without better representation and more detailed data, we risk overlooking important differences that can help us improve care and save lives.”

Hispanic cardiovascular health by the numbers

Cardiovascular risk factors are highly prevalent among Hispanic adults and often emerge at younger ages and occur more frequently among Hispanic adults compared with white adults.

• Nearly 46% of Hispanic adults have obesity, with the highest rates reported among Puerto Rican and Dominican heritage groups.
• Type 2 diabetes affects 15.5% of Hispanic adults, nearly twice the prevalence among white adults. Prevalence is highest among Mexican and Puerto Rican individuals.
• About 44% of Hispanic adults have high blood pressure, yet awareness, treatment and control rates remain lower than among white adults. The highest prevalence is observed among Puerto Rican, Cuban and Dominican individuals.

This high prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors drives increased cardiovascular disease among Hispanic adults, often occurring at younger ages. Disparities exist between Hispanic adults and white adults, and between U.S.-born and foreign-born Hispanic individuals.

• Hispanic adults are diagnosed with heart failure about 8 to 9 years younger than white adults.
• Hispanic adults, on average, experience a first stroke about 6 to 8 years younger — 67 years old compared to 73 to 75 years old among white adults.
• U.S.-born Hispanic adults have shorter life expectancy and higher death rates than their foreign-born counterparts, driven by high prevalence of heart disease, stroke and multiple cardiovascular disease risk factors.

According to the report, only about 1 in 5 Hispanic adults achieves ideal cardiovascular health as defined by the American Heart Association’s original Life’s Simple 7 metrics. Updated analyses using the Association’s Life's Essential 8™ framework demonstrated persistent disparities for heart and brain health.

• Dietary quality remains a challenge. Fewer than 2% of Hispanic adults meet recommended sodium intake goals, and fewer than 10% meet recommendations for healthy fats. Increased intake of ultraprocessed foods and sugar sweetened beverages is more commonly observed among U.S.-born Hispanic adults.
• Approximately one-third of Hispanic adults report getting less than seven hours of sleep per night, a factor linked to obesity, diabetes and high blood pressure. Short sleep duration was most prevalent among individuals of Puerto Rican background.
• Nearly one-third of Hispanic adults report no moderate-to-vigorous leisure-time physical activity, the highest rate among all U.S. racial and ethnic groups.

Social and economic barriers matter

The writing group emphasized that biology alone does not explain cardiovascular health disparities. The environments where people live, work and age, along with social and economic challenges, can have a profound impact on heart health.

“Many Hispanic adults face obstacles that extend far beyond the doctor’s office,” Contreras said. “Limited health insurance coverage, language differences, food insecurity, environmental exposures and concerns related to immigration status can make it more difficult to prevent disease, manage chronic conditions and receive timely treatment. These challenges accumulate over time and contribute to persistent inequities in cardiovascular health.”

According to the report:

• Approximately 17% of Hispanics live below the federal poverty threshold compared with 8.2% of white adults and they earn less at comparable education levels.
• About 41% of all Hispanic adults and 66% of older Hispanic adults have low or limited health literacy compared with 9% of white adults. This significantly impacts how they understand medical information and work within healthcare systems to get care.
• Approximately 20% of Hispanic adults remained uninsured in 2023, compared with 6.4% of white adults and 9.8% of Black adults. This creates significant challenges for prevention and treatment.

Contreras emphasized that the rich cultural values and practices of Hispanic people also greatly influence how they may perceive their health and healthcare options.

“Family plays a central role in many Hispanic communities and can be an extraordinary source of strength, support and resilience,” Contreras said. “At the same time, family members are often called upon to translate medical information, navigate health systems and help make healthcare decisions for loved ones. Those responsibilities can shape how health information is understood and acted upon. While trusted family and community networks are invaluable, they can also become pathways for health misinformation, making culturally relevant and accurate health communication critically important.”

An action plan for improving Hispanic health

The scientific statement provides an in-depth look at the factors shaping cardiovascular health among Hispanic populations in the U.S., from traditional risk factors to the social and structural barriers that influence health. Beyond documenting the challenges, the statement outlines practical opportunities to achieve equitable cardiovascular health and reduce disparities through community engagement, culturally responsive care, inclusive research and policies that address the underlying drivers of health.

Considerations include:

• Trusted community partnerships in settings such as churches, markets, community centers and Spanish-language media platforms to help meet people where they live, work and play.
• Improved access to care and tailored clinical care including culturally appropriate bilingual health education and increased use of community health workers;
• Increased representation of Hispanic people in research studies including those using artificial intelligence and collecting more detailed data about different Hispanic heritage groups so researchers and clinicians can better understand and address unique health needs;
• Greater attention to the social conditions and policies that shape health.

“Raising awareness about these disparities is important, but awareness without access is not enough,” Contreras said. “Reducing cardiovascular disease among Hispanic populations demands action at every level, from improving access to culturally responsive care and expanding research participation to addressing the social and environmental conditions that shape health. A person’s ZIP code, access to healthy foods, ability to communicate with healthcare providers and opportunities to be physically active can be just as important to heart health as traditional medical risk factors.”

As the Hispanic population continues to grow and age, improving cardiovascular health in these communities will be critical to the nation's overall health. The statement authors emphasize that meaningful progress will require collaboration among healthcare systems, researchers, policymakers, community organizations and families to ensure that every person has access to prevention, treatment and support that reflects their culture, language and lived experiences. By addressing both medical risk factors and the social conditions that shape health, experts believe there is an important opportunity to reduce disparities and help more people live longer, healthier lives.

This scientific statement was prepared by the volunteer writing committee on behalf of the American Heart Association Council on Epidemiology and Prevention; Council on Basic Cardiovascular Sciences; Council on Cardiovascular and Stroke Nursing; Council on Cardiovascular Surgery and Anesthesia; Council on Clinical Cardiology; Council on Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health; Council on Peripheral Vascular Disease; and Stroke Council. American Heart Association scientific statements promote greater awareness about cardiovascular diseases and stroke issues and help facilitate informed health care decisions. Scientific statements outline what is currently known about a topic and what areas need additional research. While scientific statements inform the development of guidelines, they do not make treatment recommendations. American Heart Association guidelines provide the Association’s official clinical practice recommendations.

Co-authors and members of the volunteer writing committee are David Aguilar, M.D., MSc., FAHA, Vice Chair; Katia Bravo-Jaimes, M.D.; Yamnia Cortes, Ph.D., M.P.H., FAHA; Salvador Cruz-Flores, M.D., FAHA; Jorge R. Kizer, M.D., M.Sc., FAHA; Ileana Piña, M.D., M.P.H., FAHA; Harrison Bonilla, M.D.; Carlos J. Rodriguez, M.D., M.P.H., FAHA; Fatima Rodriguez, M.D., FAHA; and Gladys Velarde, M.D., FAHA. Authors’ disclosures are listed in the manuscript.

The Association receives more than 85% of its revenue from sources other than corporations. These sources include contributions from individuals, foundations and estates, as well as investment earnings and revenue from the sale of our educational materials. Corporations (including pharmaceutical, device manufacturers and other companies) also make donations to the Association. The Association has strict policies to prevent any donations from influencing its science content and policy positions. Overall financial information is available here.

Additional Resources:

• Video interview with Johanna Contreras, M.D., M.Sc., FAHA, and other available multimedia is on right column of release link.
• After Sept. 15, 2026, view the manuscript online.
• Spanish news release (to be added). A video interview with Johanna Contreras, M.D., M.Sc., FAHA, in Spanish will be avialable on the right column of the release link.
• American Heart Association’s Life’s Essential 8™
• American Heart Association Hispanic Heritage Month Resources
• American Heart Association 2026 Statistics Update – Fact Sheet Hispanic/Latino Ethnicity and CVD (PDF)
• American Heart Association news release: The lowdown on high blood pressure: what the Hispanic community needs to know
• Follow American Heart Association/American Stroke Association news on X @HeartNews
• Follow news from the American Heart Association’s Circulation journal on X @CircAHA

###

About the American Heart Association

The American Heart Association is a relentless force for a world of longer, healthier lives. Dedicated to ensuring equitable health in all communities, the organization has been a leading source of health information for more than one hundred years. Supported by more than 35 million volunteers globally, we fund groundbreaking research, advocate for the public’s health, and provide critical resources to save and improve lives affected by cardiovascular disease and stroke. By driving breakthroughs and implementing proven solutions in science, policy, and care, we work tirelessly to advance health and transform lives every day. Connect with us on heart.org, Facebook, X or by calling 1-800-AHA-USA1.

---

Journal

Circulation

DOI

10.1161/CIR.0000000000001463

Article Title

State of Cardiovascular Disease and Stroke in Hispanic/Latino Adults in the United States: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Associatio