Recent workforce reductions across U.S. health agencies ordered by the Trump administration are expected to have significant consequences for public health and medical innovation, according to industry experts. While the exact numbers remain unclear, reports suggest up to 5,000 Department of Health and Human Services employees may be affected by the cuts.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is among the agencies experiencing substantial staff reductions, with the medical device division alone losing at least 230 employees, according to Advamed CEO Scott Whitaker. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and National Institutes of Health are also facing personnel cuts that could affect disease surveillance and early-stage medical research.
Former FDA Commissioner Robert Califf expressed serious concerns about the impact on public health, noting that the agency already operates without excess staff. While the FDA’s primary drug review offices were reportedly less affected, other crucial divisions face significant losses.
The dismissals specifically target “probationary” employees – either recent hires or longtime staff members who recently received promotions. This approach could particularly impact the FDA’s ability to expand into emerging fields like artificial intelligence and nutrition, according to Patti Zettler, who previously served as HHS deputy general counsel.
Adding to these challenges, a new executive order limits future hiring across federal agencies to one new employee for every four departures. The restructuring is being implemented through Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), though details about the selection process for cuts remain largely undisclosed.
Industry experts have criticized the implementation of these reductions. James Shehan, chair of Lowenstein Sandler’s FDA Regulatory Practice, compared the approach to “hitting a steak with a
sledgehammer” rather than carefully trimming excess. Kenneth Kaitin of Tufts University School of Medicine warned about disrupting the agency’s institutional knowledge transfer, noting that “there’s a long learning curve and you’re eliminating people at the early stage.”
Questions remain about how positions funded by industry user fees, including those under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, have been affected. Califf questioned the logic of cutting positions that don’t rely on taxpayer funding, noting it simply makes operations more difficult.
While the medical device industry has vocally opposed the cuts through Advamed, major pharmaceutical companies and their representatives have remained notably quiet. The Biotechnology Innovation Organization issued a measured statement about the importance of government agencies in advancing medical innovation, while the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America declined to comment.
Califf suggested this silence might stem from fears of retaliation from the current administration. He emphasized the FDA’s crucial role in protecting public health by identifying harmful products before they reach market, warning that weakening this oversight could undermine the very reasons the agency was established.
The cuts represent a significant shift in federal health policy with potentially far-reaching implications for drug development, medical device innovation, and public health protection. While the full impact remains to be seen, experts warn that reducing staff at critical health agencies could compromise their ability to fulfill their essential public health missions and keep pace with advancing medical technologies.