HHS Job Cuts: Entire CDC Team Focused On Infertility And IVF Is 'Gone'
As part of these cuts, the CDC is saying that the entire team overseeing Assisted Reproductive Technologies has been let go. What does this mean for the future of infertility and IVF research in the U.S.? Barbara Collura, President and CEO of RESOLVE: The National Infertility Association, spoke with ForbesWomen editor Maggie McGrath about these questions and others that exist in the wake of the layoffs.
'All the data collection [on IVF outcomes] and all of that work is going to stop,' Collura said. 'When you think about IVF, what are the outcomes? These things are about a year out, so I would say that we're probably going to not have the data from the last year they've collected.'
Collura also noted that the cuts to the CDC's ART team could undermine President Trump's ability to deliver on his February executive order around IVF access.
'In February, President Trump came out with an executive order that's asking his domestic policy council to come up with recommendations' on IVF access, Collura explained. 'The folks at CDC who got laid off are a resource to the president in order to fulfill these policy recommendations. If we're going to lean all in on IVF, as President Trump has said, why get rid of the people closes to you who know the most?'
To watch the full interview, head here or watch the video player above.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
12 minutes ago
- The Hill
Tick-borne disease spreads, causing meat, dairy allergies
Emergency room visits have spiked across the Midwest this summer as millions of Americans grapple with tick bites, but a lesser-known tick-borne illness is causing particular alarm in some communities. Alpha-gal syndrome, transmitted by the lone star tick, creates severe allergies to meat and dairy products that can last for years. The condition essentially forces people to adopt vegan diets, with some patients experiencing life-threatening reactions even to the smell of cooking meat. The lone star tick, identifiable by a white dot on the female's back, is most common from Maine to Florida and in Texas, living primarily in wooded and grassy areas. These ticks carry a sugar molecule called alpha-gal that, when transmitted to humans, triggers severe allergic reactions to mammalian products. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates as many as 450,000 people in the U.S. may have it. Patients report reactions so severe that smelling burgers on a grill can cause unconsciousness. The syndrome also affects everyday items containing animal byproducts, including lip balms, lotions and some bottled water, causing hives, coughing and wheezing. Cases have become so widespread on Martha's Vineyard that restaurants there now offer special alpha-gal menus, according to report from The New York Times. Nicole Cooper of Virginia, diagnosed with alpha-gal syndrome in December 2021, experienced symptoms for more than a year before receiving proper diagnosis. She was rushed to an emergency room unable to breathe, where doctors recognized a recurring rash on her arms. 'I was shocked when they wanted to run the blood test,' Cooper told NewsNation's ' Elizabeth Vargas Reports.' 'I was, like, no, no, I really hate ticks,' she continued. 'I always wear my bug repellent when I'm out in the woods.' She became 'fume reactive,' unable to be around cooking meat or use cast iron pans previously used for meat. Even products such as dryer balls containing lanolin, derived from sheep, became off-limits. The delayed reaction between exposure and symptoms makes alpha-gal syndrome particularly difficult to diagnose and treat. Cooper remained highly reactive for two years before her symptoms began improving through strict avoidance of mammalian products.
The Hill
42 minutes ago
- The Hill
CDC funding changes inject ‘chaos' into local health programs
The Trump administration has delayed or blocked millions of dollars in federal grants from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), leaving state and local health departments in the dark, uncertain when or even if they will get money that's already been appropriated by Congress for key public health initiatives. With little communication from the White House, CDC staff are trying to expedite getting grants out the door, and public health officials are scrambling to spend the money they have before it expires Sept. 30. The CDC typically doles out the money it receives from Congress to state and local health departments, which in turn fund local contracts. But with the start of the new administration, the White House began to apportion money to CDC on a month-by-month basis, citing the need for external reviews. That practice stopped when the agency received a two-month apportionment through the end of the fiscal year, according to CDC employees, but some grants were delivered late while others are still being blocked. 'Everything is weeks, if not months behind schedule,' a CDC employee with knowledge of the funding situation said. Another employee noted the extra layers involved in getting funding out the door, including new external reviews being conducted by the U.S. Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). 'With every single award requiring DOGE review, there is fear the award may not be made before the end of the fiscal year and lapse of funds,' the employee said. Raynard Washington, director of the Mecklenburg County Public Health Department in North Carolina, said his agency laid off six workers — including half its disease investigators — after grants for HIV prevention and surveillance programs expired at the end of May with no information about future funding. The grants were eventually restored about a month later, but to date the department has only been able to bring back half of the people it laid off. 'So now we're behind, and cases are still being reported every day that have to be investigated,' Washington said. 'The more time that people may have been exposed to HIV and don't know it, or syphilis and don't know it and are getting tested and treated, those delays actually translate to potential illness.' Meanwhile, the Trump administration is preventing CDC from funding tens of millions of dollars in other awards, including for public health emergency preparedness, chronic disease prevention and education, academic prevention research centers, gun violence, and tobacco use. That means activities like training hospital staff and other health workers alongside first responders to prepare for a natural disaster are on hold. Washington said North Carolina had to lay off its team working on tobacco prevention efforts because the funding had dried up. 'These are not delays that we expect, given that Congress has appropriated funding for these initiatives,' Washington said. 'And these are things that — despite the political swings in Washington — have largely received bipartisan support, and so you don't expect that there was going to be gaps.' Philip Huang, director of Dallas County Health and Human Services in Texas, said he was waiting for nearly 30 percent of the promised award for public health emergency preparedness. The state doesn't know if that money is ever coming, Huang said. 'So, it makes it very difficult for us to plan. And many health departments don't have much buffer. If you plan and keep everything fully operational with all your staff now, and then you don't get the [remaining funding], then you're not going to be able to last through the year,' Huang said. CDC centers are currently not allowed to move funding into the blocked programs, according to employees. If that money is not apportioned by Sept. 30, it could be returned to the Treasury, a maneuver known as a 'pocket rescission' that has drawn criticism from lawmakers in both parties. Congress in July approved the White House's official rescissions proposal to claw back $9 billion of funding for foreign aid and public broadcasting. The White House would have to send another official rescission message to Congress, which Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Director Russell Vought claims would effectively freeze the funding and cause it lapse. 'Effectively, what they're doing is keeping that money in house. We can't pull it down,' said Scott Harris, chief of the Alabama Department of Public Health and president of the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials. 'We have grants that we thought we had access to, we suddenly have different rules about how we're allowed to spend.' Asked about the status of CDC grants, the Department of Health and Human Services referred The Hill to OMB, which did not respond to multiple requests for comment. Harris said the uncertainty is 'chaos' for health departments and makes it almost impossible to predict or plan for the future. 'We never really know month to month if a program's still going to be here anymore,' Harris said. 'We have serious concerns about whether all of the money that has been awarded will be spent before the end of the fiscal year. New instructions on which types of expenditures are allowable will prevent us from supporting much of the programmatic work that the grants are designed to fund.'
The Hill
42 minutes ago
- The Hill
Pesticides test MAHA-MAGA alliance
The 'Make America Healthy Again' (MAHA) movement could be on a collision course with its Republican allies over pesticides and toxic chemicals. MAHA is strongly aligned with the Trump administration, having cheered its anti-vaccine actions and food safety reforms. In general, the movement has been deeply skeptical of Big Pharma, Big Agriculture and Big Chemical. And cracks are beginning to form. MAHA-aligned groups and influencers are particularly raising alarms about provisions in a House appropriations bill that they say will shield pesticide and chemical manufacturers from accountability — and ultimately make Americans less healthy. Meanwhile, a draft of the administration's 'MAHA report' reportedly omits any calls to prevent pesticide exposure, also disappointing advocates. 'It's obvious that there are tensions within this newfound coalition between MAHA and MAGA, and there are some big issues there,' said Mary Holland, CEO of Children's Health Defense, a group that was founded by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., considered the MAHA flagbearer. Conservatives have traditionally sided with big business, supporting fewer regulations on potentially toxic substances. Kennedy and his disciples, meanwhile, espouse stricter environmental protections, while also bucking mainstream science on vaccine safety. The disparities on chemicals and pesticides within their coalition put Republicans in the middle: Do they side with big business or health concerns? On many issues, business interests appear to be winning. The New York Times reported last week, based on a draft that it obtained, that a forthcoming iteration of the Trump administration's MAHA positions does not call for new restrictions on pesticides and describes existing procedures as 'robust.' MAHA-aligned activists recoiled. 'The MAHA draft report stating that the EPA's [Environmental Protection Agency] pesticide review process is 'robust' is the biggest joke in American history. And it's not funny. It's deadly,' wrote Zen Honeycutt, founder of the activist group Moms Across America, in a post on X. Meanwhile, a Republican-authored House Appropriations bill seeks to block pesticide labels that go beyond what the EPA uses based on its current human health risk assessment. During a markup last month, Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho), who chairs the Interior-Environment Appropriations subcommittee, said that the measure says that 'states cannot require a pesticide label that is different from the EPA label.' 'The language ensures that we do not have a patchwork of state labeling requirements. It ensures that one state is not establishing the label for the rest of the states,' Simpson said, adding that his comments were meant to be clarifying for all the 'MAHA moms that are out there that are concerned about this that have been calling.' But critics say such a move could prevent the use of updated science on pesticide labels. 'This section, section 453, would basically handcuff EPA, companies and states as well as advocates to … research that could be outdated by over 15 years,' said Geoff Horsfield, policy director at the Environmental Working Group. 'The language in here … says that EPA should only update labels according to the human health risk assessment. EPA, by law, is required to do those human health risk assessments every 15 years, but they often don't complete those in time,' Horsfield said. 'The way the law works currently is states have the power to do additional addendums, and that's where you see, say, a state requires an additional setback so that you can't spray within 250 feet of a school, or you're required to wear additional types of [personal protective equipment],' he continued. 'Those types of restrictions are usually included in a label addendum, and those types of changes and those types of tweaks would be essentially prohibited by this language.' MAHA opponents have particularly expressed concerns over the implications that barring such labeling could have on the ability to sue pesticide companies over inadequate labels. 'Having no access to courts is absolutely devastating and, in my view, unconstitutional,' said Holland, with Children's Health Defense. 'I'm very distressed by this idea that this administration might, for 2026, establish liability protection.' Democrats likewise pushed back on the provision. 'This rider would effectively gag our public health agencies, preventing them from updating labels or rules to reflect new evidence of cancer risks from pesticides,' Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) said during the markup. 'This bill is a big middle finger to cancer patients.' Also causing controversy is another provision related to 'forever chemicals,' toxic substances that have been linked to illnesses including cancer and have become widespread in the environment. The measure seeks to bar the EPA from enforcing a draft report that found that food from farms contaminated with these chemicals may pose cancer risks. Lexi Hamel, a spokesperson for Simpson, said in an email that the bill 'prohibits funding from implementing, administering, or enforcing the current draft risk assessment due to the major technical flaws in the assessment.' But she said it does not block the EPA from 'continuing to work on identifying ways to clean up PFAS and keep communities safe' and that an amendment changed the bill so that it no longer blocks the agency from finalizing its findings. In a follow-up statement shared through a spokesperson, Horsfield said the provision is still a problem. 'The risk assessment will still have to be implemented and enforced,' he said. 'The draft risk assessment will need teeth … Allowing EPA to finalize the draft risk assessment, but preventing them from implementing it is an exercise in futility.' MAHA activists have slammed both provisions, saying in a letter to President Trump that GOP support for the measures is 'unconscionable.' However, Tony Lyons, president of the MAHA Action PAC, said he does not blame Republicans for pesticides in the environment. 'I don't think that this is something that comes from the GOP side. I think that this is a case of the Democratic Party looking to blame Republicans for it,' Lyons said. While the pesticide issues have generated some sparks between MAHA and MAGA, the administration has taken a number of other actions to also reduce restrictions on the chemical industry more broadly. Trump himself exempted from environmental standards more than 100 polluters, including chemical manufacturers, oil refineries, coal plants and medical device sterilizers. The EPA, meanwhile, has put chemical industry alumni in leading roles and has said it wants to loosen restrictions on emissions of various cancer-linked chemicals. Asked about Trump's move to exempt polluters from Clean Air Act rules, Holland said 'there's clearly tensions' within the GOP coalition. 'Those factions, if you will, more protective of corporate and more challenging to corporate, are both striving to get the president's ear, and I don't think they've come to a complete, sort of settlement agreement,' she said.
