Right. So it doesn't matter if the OPPOSITE is in fact true, the mere fact that someone ATTEMPTED to reduce funding means that, IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT FUNDING WAS INCREASED, this has caused problems.
You can criticize the attempt. You can say "see, this is why it would have been terrible to cut funding". But you can't blame the spread of a pandemic on something that never happened (budget cuts). Politifact can squeak about "half true" all they want: the underlying premise of blame is invalid.
So yeah, I think I'll stand by my original point.
EDIT: In fact, if one would insist on placing blame on Trump for attempting to cut funding, then one would, by that very logic, be forced to CREDIT Trump for increasing funding, as he was the one that signed the eventual increases into law!