Chaos and confusion have engulfed the restructuring efforts at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services this week, affecting thousands of workers. Several employees who were dismissed are being temporarily reinstated, and many managers remain uncertain about their current staff roster. With human resources teams significantly reduced, obtaining answers has proven difficult, as reported by interviews with over a dozen staff members, many of whom remained anonymous to avoid potential repercussions.
The dismissals began earlier in the week, with many employees discovering their termination only upon finding their security badges invalid as they attempted to enter the building.
Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. acknowledged that approximately 20% of the job cuts were errors, stating to reporters that some of those dismissed would be reinstated. He noted that this had always been part of the plan—making 80% cuts with the expectation that 20% would require reconsideration due to mistakes.
Among errors cited, Kennedy highlighted the elimination of a CDC division crucial in addressing lead contamination in water, which jeopardized a significant testing initiative about to commence in Milwaukee’s schools.
However, despite assurances on reinstating certain programs, confusion persisted. Division officials reported receiving no updates about resuming their activities or job restorations by Friday afternoon.
In a statement, the HHS justified the restructuring as a realignment towards its core mission to address chronic disease and enhance national health. The department indicated that approximately 10,000 positions were eliminated, focusing primarily on redundant or unnecessary administrative roles.
At the National Institutes of Health, six workers from the public records office, initially terminated, were instructed to return, despite their impending job terminations still in place. A spokesperson familiar with the internal memo noted its directive for reinstatement without job restoration. Similarly, a team within the Food and Drug Administration faced layoff then recall, although their positions remain set for attrition by June.
For others, some job terminations were entirely reversed. For example, 29 of 82 dismissed employees at the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke were invited back, including several senior scientists.
HHS declined to provide specific figures on the reinstatement of personnel. A worker from a regional HHS office recounted initial relief at avoiding layoff, only to later receive notification that she was potentially affected, leading to further uncertainty when her work email ceased functioning without official dismissal notice.
Managers and staff across various CDC units expressed bewilderment over the lack of clarity regarding remaining personnel and the future of their programs. Occupational divisions faced a significant reduction in workforce, hindering their operational abilities.
Vanessa Michener, a health communication specialist at the CDC involved in HIV outreach, expressed shock at the disorganized execution of the layoffs, commenting on the seemingly arbitrary decision-making process leading to substantial programmatic cuts.
Facing minimal information from the department, employees have resorted to crowdsourcing to identify affected positions and share advice on navigating the situation. They have distributed documentation advising against preemptively resigning and outlined employee rights, potential severance, and unemployment benefits.
Adding to the turbulence, the department announced a 35% cut in contract spending, exacerbating operational difficulties for remaining management staff, particularly within the CDC, according to an insider.
At the FDA, communication personnel are grappling with layoffs contradicting previous pledges for transparency and comprehensive public information. A fired team member expressed concerns over the absence of communicators to fulfill Kennedy’s transparency vision.
At the NIH, the layoffs, predominantly targeting support and administrative roles critical to scientific research, have seeded substantial discontent, with fears raised about long-term impacts on medical advancements and the nation’s competitive standing in global scientific research.
An NIH official, citing unauthorized speech concerns, underscored the severe implications for infectious disease research and the potential generational repercussions of the cutbacks, noting a comparison to China’s increased investments in scientific fields.
