CDC layoffs strike deeply at its ability to respond to health emergencies
The CDC played an instrumental, if imperfect, role in the response to COVID-19. (JHDT Stock Images LLC/iStock via Getty Images)
In just a few short weeks, the Trump administration has brought drastic changes to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and public health. Beginning with the removal of websites and key public health datasets in January 2025, the Trump administration has taken actions to dismantle established public health infrastructure as part of its second-term agenda.
In addition, the administration has begun a widespread purge of the federal public health workforce. As of Feb. 19, around 5,200 employees at the CDC and the National Institutes of Health had been let go. About 10% of the CDC's staff have been removed, with plans for additional firings.
As a teaching professor and public health educator, I, like thousands of other health professionals, rely on CDC data and educational resources throughout my work. CDC websites are the first stop for health information for my students and for health care practitioners, and are vital to protecting the U.S. from infectious diseases, like avian flu and COVID-19, as well as noninfectious health conditions, such as diabetes and heart disease.
Here's a quick look at what the CDC does to protect Americans' health, and how it's likely to be affected by the Trump administration's actions:
Prior to the February cuts, the CDC employed over 10,000 full-time staff in roles spanning public health, epidemiology, medicine, communications, engineering and beyond to maintain this critical public health infrastructure.
In addition to the centers' wide variety of functions to protect and promote public health in the U.S., a vast amount of research in the U.S. relies on CDC data. The CDC obtains data from all 50 states, territories and the District of Columbia, which is collated into widely utilized databases such as the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, National Health Interview Survey and Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System.
Several of these datasets and CDC websites were removed at the start of the second Trump term, and while they are currently back online due to a federal court order, it remains to be seen if these important sources of information will remain accessible and updated going forward.
The CDC also publishes the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, which allows for ongoing and timely surveillance of key health conditions. The reports cover a wide range of topics, including wildfires, motor vehicle accidents, autism, asthma, opioids, mental health and many others. The CDC plays a central role in monitoring and reporting the spread of flu in winter months through its FluView, which informs clinical practice as well as public health interventions.
Physicians are reporting that their ability to respond to the surges in respiratory viruses they are seeing has been hobbled by the missing data and by prohibitions on CDC staff communicating outside the agency.
The CDC's famed 'disease detectives,' part of the Epidemic Intelligence Service, appear to have been spared following public outcry after more than half of its members were initially told they would be let go as part of the Feb. 14 mass layoffs.
It remains to be seen if this group will remain intact long term. Concerns are growing that shakeups to the nation's infectious disease surveillance teams will hamper the government's ability to respond effectively at a time when avian flu and measles are growing concerns in the U.S.
The CDC began as a small branch of the U.S. Public Health Service in 1946 as an outgrowth of successes fighting malaria in southern states during World War II and before. Its founder, Dr. Joseph W. Mountin, envisioned that it would come to serve all states, addressing all communicable diseases. Since that time, the CDC has evolved into the nation's premier public health organization, leveraging both clinical and population health sciences to prevent and mitigate challenges to the nation's health.
In its first 40 years, the CDC helped eradicate smallpox and identify the causes of Legionnaires' disease, toxic shock syndrome and HIV.
As the country's primary health challenges have shifted from communicable diseases to noncommunicable ones over recent decades, the organization has adapted, expanding its reach and priorities to meet changing public health needs. The CDC also has the ability to flex and scale up efforts rapidly when needed to respond to novel outbreaks, which is essential for containing infectious diseases and preventing escalation.
Recognizing that health does not exist in a vacuum, the CDC also operates internationally to mitigate health challenges that could threaten health in the U.S. over time. The agency is active in addressing diseases that are endemic in certain areas, such as tuberculosis and HIV. It also responds to outbreaks from emerging threats, like Ebola and Marburg virus disease.
The CDC played a crucial role in responding to the COVID-19 pandemic, coordinating with the World Health Organization, domestic health agencies and others to plan and execute a robust response.
In 2024, the CDC worked with the WHO to respond to a Marburg virus outbreak in Rwanda that lasted for several months. On average, about half of people infected with Marburg virus do not survive, so early detection and effective response are essential to prevent loss of life and contain outbreaks before they spread widely.
On Jan. 20, 2025, the White House announced President Donald Trump's plans to withdraw from the WHO. This move further weakens the country's ability to manage and mitigate threats to Americans' health and national security.
Not only does the WHO do essential work to protect children around the world from needless death due to starvation, but it monitors and responds to infectious diseases. The U.S. has been the largest contributor to the WHO, with approximately 12%-15% of its operating costs coming from the U.S. That means that removal of U.S. support will also affect the WHO's capacity to respond to international public health issues.
As the COVID-19 pandemic made plain, a delayed response to infectious disease outbreaks can exponentially increase long-term costs and consequences. It remains to be seen what impact the established relationships between the CDC and the WHO will have on their ability to coordinate effectively during times of crisis.
The reach, flexibility, adaptability and robust foundation of relationships developed over the past eight decades enable the CDC to respond to threats quickly, wherever in the world they arise. This is important for protecting health, and it plays a vital role in global and national security as well.
In addition to its direct actions to promote public health, the CDC provides workforce development and training to help create an enduring public health infrastructure in the U.S. and abroad. This is more important than ever, as systemic factors have placed pressure on health professionals. The domestic public health workforce has shrunk drastically, losing 40,000 workers since the start of the Great Recession in 2009 due to economic constraints and social pressures during the pandemic. The CDC's workforce development efforts help counteract these trends.
Public health workers were reporting high rates of burnout and stress even before the COVID-19 pandemic, which the pandemic worsened. Cuts to the federal workforce, as well as funding for public health programs, will no doubt add to these strains.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
Will Trump's policies kill Massachusetts' life sciences leadership?
Advertisement Although the industry is centered in eastern Massachusetts, there's a statewide benefit from all the tax dollars those businesses and workers pay. Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up In all, Massachusetts organizations — including universities, research institutes, and hospitals — received $3.5 billion in funding from the National Institutes of Health. Massachusetts-headquartered companies raised $3.26 billion in venture capital funding. Among all drugs in the development pipeline in the United States, 15 percent were being made by companies headquartered in Massachusetts. But actions taken by President Trump and his administration — cutting funding for scientific research and universities, flirting with tariffs, fanning skepticism about vaccines — threaten to devastate the ecosystem. Today, the industry is at a precipice, and uncertainty abounds. Some companies are already feeling the pinch of terminated federal grants, while others are anxious about what might come. Taken together, Trump's policies could force some companies and scientists to take their money, talents, and products overseas. Advertisement Christopher Locher, CEO of Lowell-based Versatope Therapeutics, which develops a platform to deliver vaccines and therapeutics, said he worries the Greater Boston life sciences ecosystem is 'being flushed down the toilet.' For example, Trump is Trump's funding cuts are already having a large impact on some local companies. Part of the problem is the Trump administration isn't only cutting funding, but it's picking which technologies to fund — in some cases apparently based on politics more than science. Take flu vaccines. The Trump administration recently announced a $500 million campaign to fund the development of a universal flu vaccine, which doesn't require annual updates, using technology being worked on But simultaneously, he cut funding for other work on a universal flu vaccine. Versatope Therapeutics got $14 million in NIH funding and spent five years developing a universal flu vaccine. It had approval from the US Food and Drug Administration to begin clinical trials when Trump terminated the contract's remaining $8 million, with the reason given being 'convenience,' Locher said. Trump also Advertisement Company executives say decisions by Trump officials to disinvest in vaccine-related technology — and concerns about whether government will approve new technology — means it's nearly impossible to find private investment funding to replace lost federal dollars. 'We're faced with bankruptcy in the very near future,' Locher said. Ironically, given Trump's stated commitment to bringing businesses back to the United States, one potential option Locher is eyeing is opening a subsidiary abroad. Conducting clinical trials would be cheaper in another country, whether in Europe, Australia, or China, Locher said, and some countries are offering financial incentives to American companies to relocate. Companies also face a potential workforce brain drain. There have been MassBio officials said China has less rigorous — but faster — safety and research protocols than the US. Australia allows a faster timeline for clinical trials. If regulatory approval of medicines is held up because the FDA is understaffed, companies may seek European regulatory approval instead. The loss of talent to foreign countries will be compounded if the pipeline of local university graduates dries up. One draw for life sciences companies to Boston/Cambridge is the presence of elite schools like Harvard and MIT, with their potential for faculty collaboration and skilled graduates. Advertisement Trump is trying to Chip Clark, CEO at Vibrant Biomedicines in Cambridge, said cuts to university research funding both 'shrink the pipeline of great ideas' that form the basis for many biotech startups and translate to fewer available scientists. Clark said the administration's policies 'seem like a deliberate attempt to try to cede scientific leadership to Europe and Japan and Korea and China. ... They will be delighted to capitalize on our talent, technology, and investment capital to make their robust biotech sectors grow and ultimately compete successfully against the US industry,' he said. Don Ingber, founding director of the Wyss Institute for Biologically Inspired Engineering at Harvard University, said he has postdocs with US visas applying for jobs in Europe, and others who were accepted to work at Harvard but are going elsewhere. 'The fact that places like Harvard and MIT and American universities are magnets for the best and brightest from around the world is what's driven our technology economy and certainly the Boston/Cambridge ecosystem,' Ingber said. 'With this uncertainty, I fear we'll lose a generation.' Ingber, who was forced to stop work on two government-funded projects on drugs designed to prevent injury from radiation exposure, compared administration policies to 'eating seed corn' needed to grow crops. Advertisement Trump's vendetta will undermine one of the most vibrant state economies in the country and set back American science by years. And it's not just eastern Massachusetts that will pay a price; the entire country will. As Ingber noted, it might take years to see the impact of medicines or technologies that aren't developed because of these shortsighted cuts. Editorials represent the views of the Boston Globe Editorial Board. Follow us
Newsweek
an hour ago
- Newsweek
Can Tackling Addictions Reduce Medicaid Costs?
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Discussions around Medicaid costs have become more heated than ever in recent months as President Donald Trump's administration tries to push its budget bill through the legislative ranks. House Republicans have instructed the House Committee on Energy and Commerce to slash $880 billion in spending over the next decade, with Medicaid making up 93 percent of the committee's budget. As a result, the amount of money the federal Medicaid program needs to provide health care services for more than 70 million Americans has been under dispute, with some arguing there is significant waste and misuse of money in the system, while others have warned cuts would leave millions of vulnerable people without access to health care. While lawmakers continue debating the divisive legislation, experts have discussed with Newsweek whether there could be another way of reducing Medicaid costs—tackling substance use disorders. Medicaid enrollees with substance use disorders require significantly higher health costs than those without—around $1,200 per month on average compared to $550, according to KFF. Around 7.2 percent of Medicaid recipients age 12 to 64 have a diagnosed substance use disorder, and treatment is key to addressing overdoses, deaths and other health or social complications, KFF reported. So could tackling substance use disorders in turn reduce costs for the Medicaid program? Here's what experts told Newsweek. Photo-illustration by Newsweek/Getty/Canva Why Are Medicaid Costs Higher for Those With Substance Use Disorders? The reason Medicaid enrollees with substance use disorders have higher health costs is because they often also have additional health complications, Dr. Joshua Lynch, professor of emergency and addiction medicine at the University at Buffalo Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, New York, told Newsweek. This could be physical health conditions, such as hypertension, high cholesterol and diabetes, or mental health disorders, "which can lead to more complex health care needs," he added. Those with substance use disorders also may "experience more fragmented care and more challenging access to high quality, lower cost care and preventative services," Lynch said. They may also struggle to work, or stay in work, and this may "contribute to increased reliance on higher-cost healthcare services," he added. Many Americans with substance use disorders also go undiagnosed, Brendan Saloner, professor of health policy and management at the John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Maryland, told Newsweek. He added that those with substance addiction can have a lot of problems, such as the risk of overdose, or contracting blood-borne diseases like HIV or hepatitis C, as well as other issues, so "it's much better to get people into care proactively then to wait for their problems to become a crisis." The higher costs for those with substance use disorders, therefore, could "reflect the devastating physical consequences of substance use itself," Heidi Allen, professor of social work at the Columbia University School of Social Work, New York, told Newsweek, pointing to overdoses, increased vulnerability for chronic illness and exposure to infectious diseases. It's also not just about health complications, John Kelly, professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School and director of the Recovery Research Institute at Massachusetts General Hospital, told Newsweek. "The nature of these disorders means also that, on average, in the Medicaid population, individuals suffering from substance use disorder tend to have more social instability in terms of secure housing, employment, and criminal justice complications. These all contribute to increased costs," he said. Could Tackling Substance Use Disorders Reduce Medicaid Costs? While tackling substance use disorders may not slash Medicaid costs in the short term, as it would require investment in prevention and treatment, it could have positive economic impacts in the long run. "Prioritizing substance use treatment for enrollees might not reduce Medicaid costs in the short term, since we would expect more Medicaid enrollees to engage with treatment, which itself costs money," Allen said. However, she added that "it could certainly improve the health of enrollees, which might result in Medicaid savings down the road." If patients also have access to high-quality treatment and are able to manage their condition, "they have a lower reliance on high-cost health care such as emergency visits and inpatient hospitalizations," Lynch said. He added that other comorbidities also become more manageable, while housing stability and employment turn more achievable. "All of these will lead to a decrease in overall Medicaid spending," he said. Kelly also said he thought that tackling substance use disorders could reduce costs for Medicaid, adding that "focus on earlier intervention, and better implementation of care coordination will result in reduced use of more expensive acute medical care services, as well as prevention of the contraction of more chronic disease such as alcohol-associated liver diseases, HIV and hepatitis infections." "I am very confident that it would help to prevent some long-term costs to the program and would have a huge impact on other non-health needs like employment and reduced incarceration," Saloner said. But he added that whether it fully pays for itself, or saves money, is a more difficult question to answer. "We have some older studies showing that substance use care can offset lots of costs to society, but purely from the perspective of the Medicaid budget it's hard to say. The quality of life gains make it very cost-effective, whether or not it's cost saving," he said. Carrie Fry, professor in the department of health policy at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Tennessee, told Newsweek: "Research shows that addressing substance use disorder with effective, evidence-based treatments reduces Medicaid costs." In order to cut Medicaid costs, Fry said, making it easier for people with substance use disorders "to start and remain on effective treatment" would be an important step in the process. "For opioid use disorder, this means expanding availability of medications for opioid use disorder including methadone, buprenorphine, and naltrexone," she said. She added that only about half of Medicaid enrollees with an opioid use disorder receive evidence-based treatment in a given year. "So, treatment is an important first step to addressing the burden of substance use disorders in Medicaid and can reduce or prevent additional downstream costs," Fry said. She added that reducing the prevalence of substance use disorder via prevention will "require a more comprehensive approach to addressing broader social conditions that lead to increased risk of developing a substance use disorder."
Yahoo
9 hours ago
- Yahoo
FDA Reveals Which Kinds of Eggs May Be Contaminated with Salmonella
In a June news release, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration revealed that "brown cage-free and brown certified organic eggs" from the August Egg Company have "the potential" to be contaminated with salmonella. The outlet added that the eggs were "sold under multiple different brand names at restaurants and retailers" and should "no longer be available for sale." Those brands are Clover, First Street, Nuaid, O Organics, Marketside, Raleys, Simple Truth, Sun Harvest, and Sunnyside. According to People, over 1.7 million eggs have been recalled in nine states: California, Washington, Nevada, Arizona, Wyoming, New Mexico, Nebraska, Indiana, and Illinois. On June 6, 2025, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention revealed they were investigating the "multi-state outbreak of salmonella infections." Mayo Clinic states that while some people with salmonella may have no symptoms, most experience a range of symptoms, like abdominal cramps, within 8 to 72 hours. "In some cases, diarrhea can cause severe dehydration and requires prompt medical attention. Life-threatening complications also may develop if the infection spreads beyond the intestines. The risk of getting salmonella infection is higher with travel to countries without clean drinking water and proper sewage disposal." At this time, 21 people have been hospitalized due to infection, according to the FDA. In a statement, the August Egg Company shared, "We believe it is appropriate out of an abundance of caution to conduct this voluntary recall, as consumers may still have these eggs in their homes. It is important to know that when our processing plant identified this concern, we immediately began diverting all eggs from the plant to an egg-breaking facility, which pasteurizes the eggs and kills any pathogens." The company concluded, "We are committed to addressing this matter fully and to implementing all necessary corrective actions to ensure this does not happen again."FDA Reveals Which Kinds of Eggs May Be Contaminated with Salmonella first appeared on Men's Journal on Jun 7, 2025
