New Jersey Governor Mikie Sherrill (D), who took office in January, has a huge responsibility to continue advances made in harm reduction access under her predecessor, Phil Murphy (D). She has promised to do this, but experts differ on how far she’ll be willing to go—or able to go, against the backdrop of President Donald Trump’s life-threatening cuts to Medicaid and other social programs.
“My Administration is committed to expanding access to lifesaving resources and uplifting evidence-based harm reduction strategies to support sustained recovery for those affected by addiction,” Sherill told the New Jersey Monitor in March. “Real recovery means breaking dangerous cycles, removing people from harmful environments and triggers, and ensuring people have stable access to critical resources.”
“We cannot afford to lose momentum in New Jersey’s efforts to end overdose deaths,” she added.
The battle over New Jersey harm reduction during Gov. Murphy’s tenure was exemplified by years-long efforts to shut down (and save) the South Jersey Aids Alliance syringe service program (SSP) in Atlantic City.
Partly in response to that situation, Murphy signed legislation in January 2022 that removed the requirement for municipalities to approve SSP, though they retained powers over their location. That bill also expanded harm reduction by paving the way for more SSP statewide, establishing overdose fatality review teams, and decriminalizing syringe possession while allowing for expungement of past convictions.
“The Sherrill administration has not yet signaled an appetite for this kind of [spending].”
Will Gov. Sherill accelerate that kind of progress? Her proposed fiscal year 2027 budget, released on March 10, doesn’t offer much cause for optimism, according to Marleina Ubel, senior policy analyst at New Jersey Policy Perspective. Ubel commented that the proposal gives few specific details about the governor’s harm reduction goals, but looks to maintain the funding from the previous fiscal year of $4.5 million.
For Ubel, maintaining the same funding is effectively a cut, when what’s needed is an increase. “Murphy made legalization, harm reduction, decriminalization and criminal justice a priority,” she told Filter. “He did not shy away from these issues. He was a proponent of supervised injection sites, which is seen by many legislators as a radical policy.”
“We don’t know yet how Sherrill will look on these issues because she hasn’t spoken often about them,” she continued. “But I would be surprised if she was as forward and interested about getting some of those same policies done.”
In total, Murphy’s government invested $145 million into harm reduction programs during his tenure, not including increased funding for treatment and recovery programs, and family and peer support networks. That money included funding allocated by the legislature but most significantly, $119 million the state set aside from national opioid settlements. In 2025, an Advisory Council, set up by the state to oversee and make recommendations on how to spend the settlement money, released a strategic plan, focused on investment in the four areas of housing, harm reduction, treatment and coordinated wraparound services.
But Ubel is unsure whether tax money will now be allocated by state legislators and the governor at or above the levels seen under Murphy.
“The Sherrill administration has not yet signaled an appetite for this kind of [spending],” she said. “We’re in a really tight budget year, and that’s going to play a role. It’s going to be very difficult to get increased funding for many different initiatives. We do know the opioid remediation and recovery work is continuing, and more of that settlement money is being used. We do want to make sure it is used for its intended purpose. We want to see data-driven solutions being uplifted by her administration.”
“The governor is very supportive of these issues. It’s just the fiscal background of how we pay for all this.”
Use of the settlement money already sparked a political firestorm in the state capital, when legislators in 2025 voted to divert $45 million to four of the state’s major hospitals. The decision was lambasted by former Attorney General Matt Plotkin and inspired a “die-in” protest in Trenton, urging lawmakers to restore “raided” funds to harm reduction programs.
Axel Torres Marrero, senior director of public policy at the Hyacinth Foundation, takes a positive view of Sherrill’s intentions, but is fearful of how the Trump administration’s cuts to health care and social services will relate to New Jersey’s financial situation. His organization provides harm reduction and HIV services in seven cities statewide, and lobbies state lawmakers to create more favorable policy.
“We have an existing relationship with the governor that began when she was in Congress,” he told Filter. “We worked with our entire NJ delegation on issues like housing, Ryan White [HIV/AIDS program] and harm reduction. That office was always receptive and supportive. There’s no need for ‘level setting’ and the governor is very supportive of these issues. It’s just the fiscal background of how we pay for all this.”
His primary concern is the effect of Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill,” which makes nearly $1 trillion in cuts to Medicaid spending over 10 years. It’s a devastating blow to harm reduction efforts, as Medicaid is the single largest payer for substance use and mental health treatment, and funds medicine and other essential services for people who use drugs. The $186 billion in cuts to SNAP, the food assistance program for people on low incomes is another major problem.
“We’re critically concerned about Medicaid and making sure NJ commits to mitigating the $400 million-plus funding gap from the ‘Big Ugly Bill.’”
“Our clientele relies heavily on health care safety net programs,” Torres Marrero said. “We’re critically concerned about Medicaid and making sure NJ commits to mitigating the $400 million-plus funding gap from the ‘Big Ugly Bill’ … Given that fact, and that we have to offset $150 million or more to make sure SNAP benefits can remain, we support level [harm reduction] funding for this year.”
“The best estimates say if NJ does not offset these cuts, we’ll have about 3,000 people living with HIV cut from the program—plus another 2,000 people who are at risk for HIV, including people actively engaged in substance use,” he added.
State data show that drug-related fatalities in New Jersey rose from 1,096 annual deaths in 2012, to 3,174 by 2022, the highest total recorded. Since then, deaths have slowly decreased, with 2,025 in 2024, the most recent year with full data—still far higher than historical figures. The impacts of vulnerable people losing food security and services aren’t hard to imagine.
New Jersey harm reduction has significantly scaled up since the years of Governor Chris Christie (R), who embraced recovery support and supply-side attacks on opioid prescriptions but was more hostile to harm reduction efforts. From Murphy’s second term, access to harm reduction services skyrocketed—increasing 122 percent from 2022-2024. That year, 4,500 people participated in programs statewide, which now number 47 in total—a massive jump from previously, when just seven programs operated. Programs reported distributing over 16,000 doses of the overdose-reversing medicine naloxone and 500 prescriptions for the opioid use disorder medication buprenorphine.
With newer harm reduction programs still just beginning to scale up, Torres Marrero urged that now is the time for the state to maintain their funding, so progress doesn’t stall or reverse.
“Some organizations are further along than others, those that have a historical footprint in [this field],” he said. “They have some structural advantages. Those that are newer in this space require and deserve more time. It’s difficult to hire and maintain professionals in this field. It takes about 18 months from receiving funding to then start seeing significant results. Level funding will ensure these programs can remain open. And phase two would be the expansion of these into other communities and counties where the prevalence and incidence rates [show a need].”
That geographic expansion, he continued, should include adding more programs in different neighborhoods of large cities like Newark or Paterson, as well as additional programs in suburban and rural communities in New Jersey’s south and shoreline regions.
Photograph (cropped) by Collin via Wikimedia Commons/Creative Commons 2.0
