And sometimes, it looks like a Black mother latching her baby for the very first time, reclaiming something that was interrupted generations ago.

​In my work advocating for Black lactation, I get the blessing of witnessing Black history in the making every single day. I see it when a mother chooses to breastfeed despite generations of messaging that told her it wasn’t for her. I see it when a father learns how to support lactation and shows up fully.

Let’s be forreal, Black lactation was targeted. Families were separated, and Black bodies were commodified. Our ancestral knowledge was dismissed, medicalized, or erased. Systems were built that disrupted our confidence and access. However, they did not erase our capacity, our wisdom, or our culture.

Lactation has always been part of Black culture. Long before it was politicized and framed as a choice. Black women nourished their babies, supported by community. Breastfeeding was not an individual performance; it was collective care.

When I support Black lactating families through Nourish & Thrive, I am not introducing something new, rather a reclamation.

In our current political climate, where conversations about race, equity, and history are being softened, sanitized, or silenced, there can be a temptation to regress and to make this work smaller. To make it more comfortable. Respectfully, we’re not doing that because supporting Black lactating families is not divisive. It is necessary. Black families deserve to be seen as more than descendants of enslaved people. We are innovators. We are culture-shapers. We are highly educated, deeply intuitive, community-centered, and yes, we ARE excellent parents. The narrative that centers only trauma without honoring triumph is incomplete.

Every time a Black mother meets her feeding goals, that’s history.
Every time a Black family receives culturally competent care, that’s progress.
Every time a provider chooses to listen instead of assume, that’s growth.

For those who are not Black, this is where partnership matters. Listening and supporting Black lactation is solidarity. It looks like funding Black-led organizations and referring families to providers who understand their lived experience. It is challenging deficit-based narratives in professional spaces and protecting equity initiatives even when they become politically inconvenient.

What I get to witness every day is powerful. I get to see Black mothers trust their bodies again. I get to watch generational cycles shift in real time. I get to stand in rooms filled with Black professionals rewriting what leadership in maternal health looks like.

That is Black history.

Not only the marches and the monuments and the names in textbooks, but the quiet resilience of a parent at 2 a.m. The steady rhythm of a baby feeding. The soft confidence of a mother who realizes, “My body was built for this”. That is legacy work. That is cultural preservation. That is resistance wrapped in tenderness.

​Earlier this year, both chambers of Congress advanced Labor–Health and Human Services–Education (LHHS) appropriations legislation, setting the stage for negotiations ahead of the new fiscal year. 

In July, the Senate passed its FY26 LHHS bill, maintaining level funding of $9.75 million for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) Hospitals Promoting Breastfeeding program and generally supporting maternal and child health investments across agencies. 

Two months later, the House advanced its own LHHS bill, omitting Hospitals Promoting Breastfeeding entirely and instead directing $100 million toward a proposed Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) initiative for health promotion and disease prevention. While the House proposal reflects interest in prevention-oriented work, the lack of specificity around how MAHA funds would support breastfeeding introduces uncertainty about implementation timelines, administrative oversight, and program accountability. 

Before these differences could be reconciled, appropriations negotiations broke down, resulting in a partial federal government shutdown on October 1. Federal operations resumed in mid-November following passage of a Continuing Resolution (CR), which temporarily extended funding for most agencies through January 30, 2026. Under a CR, agencies generally operate at prior-year funding levels and are constrained from launching new initiatives or engaging in longer-term planning. 

While the CR restored basic operations, it did not resolve the underlying disagreements shaping FY26 appropriations. For breastfeeding and lactation programs, this has meant continued reliance on carryover funding and deferred decision-making driven by agency constraints, at a moment when clarity and continuity are especially critical for states, communities, and service providers. 

The contrast between the House and Senate LHHS proposals underscores a central tension in the FY26 process. The Senate approach emphasizes continuity in existing maternal and child health infrastructure, including programs with a documented role in improving maternity care practices and breastfeeding outcomes. The House approach consolidates resources into broader prevention efforts, leaving key questions about implementation, administrative capacity, and program accountability. 

For the First Food field, these differences have tangible consequences. Programs such as Hospitals Promoting Breastfeeding provide targeted, systems-level support across maternity care, community, and workplace settings—support that is not easily replicated through generalized funding streams. Even where overall prevention funding remains substantial, ambiguity or delays in program design can disrupt training, technical assistance, and quality improvement efforts that depend on stable and predictable federal investment.  

The FY26 appropriations process has unfolded in a highly atypical manner, reflecting broader strain on the federal budgeting system. For programs supporting breastfeeding and lactation, this has produced a fragmented funding landscape shaped not only by policy differences, but by instability in the process itself.  

The expanded use of rescission—the withdrawal of previously appropriated funds—has further complicated the budgeting process. While rescission is a lawful budgetary tool, its increased use undermines confidence that enacted agreements will be honored in practice. Effective appropriations depend on good-faith negotiation, predictability across fiscal years, and trust that agencies can plan and implement once funding decisions are made. When that trust erodes, appropriators proceed more cautiously, slowing the process and increasing uncertainty for programs on the ground.  

Additional uncertainty stems from proposals to reorganize the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), shifting health promotion and disease prevention activities from the CDC’s National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion to the MAHA initiative. The House LHHS bill funds MAHA, while the Senate version does not, instead directing resources to existing programs. This divergence raises questions about where and how breastfeeding programs would be funded in FY26. Should responsibilities shift between agencies, administrative lag is likely—introducing further risk of program disruption and service delivery interruptions.  

Prolonged funding uncertainty does not affect all communities equally. When federal programs lack stability, it places the greatest strain on families and caregivers already navigating barriers to care and access. Delays in funding decisions and structural unpredictability can compound challenges for those who depend most on consistent public health infrastructure and support systems, weakening the very pathways designed to promote just well-being. 

​Congress now faces a January 30, 2026 deadline to either enact full-year appropriations or extend funding again. This decision point carries significant implications for program stability, agency planning, and the ability of the breastfeeding field to sustain momentum amid broader public health uncertainty. 

How Congress resolves these negotiations—and whether it restores predictability and trust to the appropriations process—will shape the federal breastfeeding landscape well beyond this fiscal year. 

The U.S. Breastfeeding Committee will continue to monitor developments closely and share analysis to support collective understanding and engagement. In moments like this, clarity, steadiness, and shared commitment are critical tools for protecting the systems families depend on.