RFK Jr. Denies Cuts to Scientific Research While Slashing Staff, Funding – FactCheck.org

Este artículo estará disponible en español en El Tiempo Latino.

Under the Trump administration, the Department of Health and Human Services has canceled or frozen billions of dollars in scientific research grants and attempted to cull around 20,000 agency employees, including some scientists. HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., however, has minimized the effects of the cuts to the scientific enterprise, misleadingly claiming that there have been no cuts to “life-saving” research or “working scientists.”

Echoing previous statements, Kennedy’s claims came before Congress in recent hearings that were held to discuss the large proposed cuts to HHS for the next fiscal year, but also focused on reductions that have already occurred or are in motion. President Donald Trump’s budget proposal calls for reducing HHS funding by about $33 billion, or 26%.

“Whose decision is it to withhold thousands of grants and billions in funding for life-saving medical research at [the National Institutes of Health] that we approved on a bipartisan basis in this subcommittee?” Sen. Tammy Baldwin, a Democrat from Wisconsin, asked Kennedy during a May 20 Senate appropriations subcommittee hearing, referring to funding for the current fiscal year.

“We are not abandoning any life-saving research,” Kennedy replied, going on to claim that cuts were targeting administrators, waste and duplicative programs.

But funding for a wide range of research on potentially lethal or life-altering conditions has been cut, as documented in a list of terminated grants posted by HHS, as well as a scientist-run project to track cuts to grants that documents some terminations not included on the HHS site. It’s hard to predict with certainty which individual research projects will be life-saving, but NIH grants have been cut on topics ranging from COVID-19 to cancer and HIV to amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, or ALS. There also has been a significant slowdown in new grants being awarded, according to an analysis by STAT.

In a May 14 Senate Health, Education, Labor & Pensions Committee hearing, Kennedy shifted the conversation away from the cuts to grants and toward the question of whether “working scientists” have been fired, while attempting to narrowly define scientists.

Sen. Bill Cassidy asked Kennedy about cuts to the NIH, including those affecting scientists at Louisiana universities. “The cuts we have made to date are administrative cuts,” Kennedy told the Louisiana Republican, after stating that cuts have been made to studies on DEI — otherwise known as diversity, equity and inclusion — gain-of-function research and grants to “foreign scientists from adversarial countries.” He continued, “As far as I know, we have not fired any working scientists, the working scientists, the people who are actually doing science. There are some people who are scientists that were doing IT or administration … who did lose their jobs. But in terms of working scientists, our policy was to make sure none of them were lost and that that research continues.”

Later in the hearing, Kennedy made a similar claim to Sen. Angela Alsobrooks, a Democrat from Maryland. “I didn’t fire any working scientist, senator,” he said. He later repeated, “As I said, there were no working scientists fired during the RIF,” referring to the April 1 reduction in force of HHS employees, which aimed to lay off 10,000 HHS employees, half of the agency’s goal. We reached out to HHS to ask if Kennedy was referring to NIH scientists specifically or HHS scientists in general, and to further clarify his definition of working scientists, but we did not receive a reply.

The reduction in force has been paused, after a U.S. District Court judge concluded on May 22 that “agencies may not conduct large-scale reorganizations and reductions in force in blatant disregard of Congress’s mandates, and a President may not initiate large-scale executive branch reorganization without partnering with Congress.” Employees remain on administrative leave.

Scientists across multiple HHS agencies, including the NIH, were told they were being let go during the reduction in force, although some scientists were subsequently reinstated. Scientists were also dismissed or forced out of HHS via other mechanisms, such as the firing of probationary employees in February. HHS has not provided detailed data on what roles have been affected by cuts. This story is based on various news reports as well as our interviews with former and current HHS employees and grant recipients. 

Alsobrooks told the HuffPost following the hearing that she had heard from fired federal scientists, and her office sent us links to various news reports of scientists who received reduction in force letters or were let go from HHS via other mechanisms.

“Yes, by the usual definition of scientists, a number of them were fired,” Dr. Robert Califf, former commissioner of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, told us via email, speaking of cuts at his former agency. “I heard there was some quibbling over the definition at the budget hearing, but I think most people would agree that plenty of people who were fired had PhD’s or masters degrees or MDs and were doing scientific work.”

Many Centers for Disease Control and Prevention scientists were also part of the April 1 cuts, according to a union representing CDC employees, including people studying sexually transmitted infections, environmental health, smoking and tobacco control, and more.

At the NIH, some lab heads received notice April 1 they were being let go, according to the Transmitter, although they were later told it was an error and were reinstated May 20. Scientists serving as contract workers for the NIH also have been dismissed, STAT reported.

Cuts at the NIH and other agencies already reportedly have affected the abilities of those still employed to carry out their work, which includes not only doing scientific research, but funding, supporting and implementing research.

“With respect to NIH, much of the scientific work is conducted under government grants, which are being terminated on an unprecedented scale,” Sarah Sorscher, director of regulatory affairs at the Center for Science in the Public Interest, told us via email. Nature has reported that more than 1,500 NIH grants have been cut, often based on directives from the new Department of Government Efficiency. “It’s misleading to say you are not firing ‘scientists’ at the same time you are terminating federal grants for science on a mass scale,” Sorscher said.

Scientists Were Included in HHS Staffing Cuts

Complicating matters, Kennedy on April 3 said that 20% of the personnel cut “are going to have to be reinstated, because we’ll make mistakes.” But our reporting and other news reports indicate scientists have been let go across multiple HHS agencies since the beginning of the Trump administration, during multiple rounds of cuts.

Some scientists have been reinstated. FDA employees who were initially told they had been cut during the April reduction in force included scientists working in labs that monitored food and drug safety. After FDA Commissioner Dr. Marty Makary repeatedly told news outlets that no scientists had been cut from his agency, chemists and microbiologists monitoring food safety told CBS News that they, along with their colleagues, had in fact been cut.

The scientists had been working on such projects as testing pet food for bird flu and baby formula for contaminants. Food scientists were reinstated, as were scientists doing drug testing.

Some FDA scientists who lost their jobs have not returned, said Califf, who served as FDA commissioner during the Obama and Biden administrations.

“All of the people who were terminated from the probationary cuts have been removed from federal service,” epidemiologist Brian King, former director of the FDA’s Center for Tobacco Products, told us of the February cuts to his center, which included scientific reviewers. “And so, those people are gone. And that included scientists, which can have an adverse impact on the agency’s ability to effectively do its job.”

King, who was himself forced out of the FDA in April before taking a job as an executive at the nonprofit Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, explained that reviewing any given tobacco product requires “dozens of scientists,” including toxicologists, physicians, epidemiologists, social scientists, engineers and others. He added that the Center for Tobacco Products is entirely funded by fees from companies, so cuts to scientists and other staff are “not saving the taxpayers a dime.”

Dr. Janet Woodcock, former principal deputy commissioner at the FDA, also pointed out during an April 7 conference that cuts to support staff and leadership matter, comparing these cuts to letting go all of a hospital’s employees except for doctors.

“Doctors can’t just walk in and perform surgery all by themselves,” she said, according to Fierce Biotech. “The reviewer is the same.”

A similar roller coaster ride of cuts and reinstatements played out at the NIH. Five days after Kennedy’s May 14 hearing, CBS News reported that 11 lab heads were still in limbo, despite having been told more than a month earlier that they had been accidentally let go. The day after the CBS News report, the employees received a letter officially stating they were being reinstated, the Transmitter reported.

The NIH also let go and then reinstated some early-career scientists in an earlier round of cuts to probationary employees, according to Science. And as we’ve said, scientists working at the NIH as contract workers were let go, according to STAT.

The NIH also employs scientists who might not meet Kennedy’s narrow definition of a “working scientist” but nonetheless apply specialized knowledge in their roles.

In a May 21 forum held by Democratic senators, chemist Jeremy Berg, former director of the NIH’s National Institute of General Medical Sciences, said that the NIH “lost institute directors, experienced PhD scientists who serve as program officers and scientific review officers, and … grants management specialists.” Berg departed the NIH in 2011 and is now a professor at the University of Pittsburgh.

Program and scientific review officers, who help give out and oversee NIH grants, may not be doing experiments in the lab anymore, Berg said, but they are still “PhD-trained people” who play an important role. Berg told us via email that “quite a number” of program officers and scientific review officers were terminated.

“These individuals are key to the careful stewardship of 80% of the NIH appropriation that is distributed to universities, academic medical centers and research institutes across the country,” Berg said at the Senate forum, referring to the research grants distributed by the NIH that make up the majority of the agency’s budget.

Other employees in roles like communications might be helping to save lives. For example, STAT and the Medill News Service reported that staff at the NIH who worked on a longstanding campaign to promote safe infant sleep were part of the reduction in force at the agency.

Berg also said during the forum that firing support staff hinders the ability of those scientists who remain at the NIH to do their jobs. For instance, the NIH Clinical Center runs clinical trials, but STAT and the Cancer Letter reported that reductions in force have delayed some studies. “For some trials, even delay of a month or two has the potential to invalidate the entire trial,” Berg said, and delays can be “heartbreaking” for cancer patients hoping to start a trial after they have “exhausted all other treatments.”

Many scientists in leadership positions have also left HHS. In some cases, leaders were reassigned to other positions in faraway locations or otherwise forced out. While it’s standard for there to be changes in some top roles at agencies with new administrations, many people who left have previously served across multiple administrations.

One fired scientist in a leadership position at the National Cancer Institute publicly objected to Kennedy’s claims that no “working scientists” were fired. Erin Lavik, former deputy director and chief technology officer of the NCI Division of Cancer Prevention, told the Cancer Letter that many “probationary employees who were fired at the NCI were working scientists dedicated to identifying and supporting programs in cancer research.” Lavik wrote on LinkedIn that she herself continued to be a working scientist even as she took on a leadership role, including serving as the project scientist for the International Skin Imaging Collaboration consortium, a project to improve skin cancer screening and diagnosis.

Scientists are also leaving the NIH in response to a combination of incentives to leave and worsening conditions at the agency. For instance, Science spoke with a researcher who said that 25 of around 320 physician-scientists at the NIH Clinical Center were departing. An eminent nutrition researcher, Kevin Hall, left the NIH after he said officials censored his ability to communicate about his work. Hall was asked to come back but recently told STAT he likely would not return.

Kennedy Fires Scientists While Claiming Their Work Will Continue

At the May 20 Senate hearing, Kennedy said the CDC would “return to core missions tracking diseases, investigating outbreaks and sustaining public health infrastructure while cutting waste.”

But as we’ve said, many scientists at the CDC were part of the April 1 reduction in force. Kennedy has said that programs will be moved to the new Administration for a Healthy America, but details are lacking on when this new administration will be formed and what programs will in fact be funded.

“Very little information has been released about Kennedy’s plans for AHA,” CSPI’s Sorscher said. Trump’s proposed budget does list one increase of $500 million to HHS for the “Make America Healthy Again” initiative, which she said “may be intended to support the new AHA as there are no other lines in the budget for such an agency.” But the increase does not make up for the proposed cuts of about $33 billion to HHS overall, including reductions of $3.5 billion to the CDC and nearly $18 billion to the NIH.

The CDC lost more than 1,500 “scientists, medical professionals, veterinary professionals, engineers, and other STEM leaders,” representing more than half of those cut at the agency during the reduction in force, according to a webpage from the chapter of the American Federation of Government Employees that represents CDC workers. The union stated that the numbers are estimates based on reports from union members and “from our understanding of the workforce at CDC.”

News outlets have reported that those fired at CDC include scientists focused on injuries, sexually transmitted disease, tobacco and hepatitis, for example. A large number of scientists who assist with worker safety programs were also let go, although some have been reinstated.

“If your grandmother was recently exposed to hepatitis when she visited a pain clinic in Florida, she won’t be able to get the specialized screening test she needs because the CDC lab that was going to aid Florida in this outbreak already got shut down,” Dr. Anne Schuchat, former principal deputy director of the CDC, said during the May 21 Senate forum on research cuts, referring to a recent breach in infection control protocol at a Melbourne, Florida, pain clinic that exposed patients to hepatitis C.

When asked about program losses at CDC, Kennedy has often said that the programs would continue but has not offered any details.

For instance, Rep. Rosa DeLauro, a Democrat from Connecticut, asked Kennedy about the elimination of the CDC’s Office on Smoking and Health during a May 14 House Appropriations Committee hearing on the HHS budget. “I will just say broadly, many of the programs that the Democrats are now saying were cut at CDC were not cut at all,” Kennedy said, stating that he had been advised not to talk about the reorganization. “Those programs were transferred to the Administration for Healthy America.”

King, who worked at the Office on Smoking and Health before starting his former position at the FDA, said that if there are plans to continue the role of the office as part of AHA, they have not been “tangibly relayed to the American public.” Right now, “the CDC’s Office on Smoking and Health has been completely removed, and they are responsible for a variety of life-saving activities, including monitoring tobacco use, educating the public about the risks of tobacco use, and also importantly funding state tobacco control programs and quit lines,” King said.

The Division of Environmental Health Science and Practice, which included the CDC’s lead poisoning team, also has been cut.

But when pressed on the elimination of this team and the failure of the CDC to respond to a school lead crisis in Milwaukee, Kennedy has said the CDC’s lead program would be reinstated and cutting it had been a mistake. An HHS official denied that the program was being reinstated but told ABC News that the “work will continue elsewhere at HHS.” As recently as May 20, Kennedy told Sen. Jack Reed, a Democrat from Rhode Island, that “we are continuing to fund the program” and that “we have a team in Milwaukee.”

But a spokesperson for the Milwaukee Health Department told CNN that the city’s “formal Epi Aid request was denied by the CDC” — a type of request to the CDC for decision-making help that has in the past been granted. The department did recently receive a visit from a CDC staffer from a different part of the agency who helped calibrate a machine, a preexisting request that was independent from the school lead crisis.

“None of us have been rehired. Not even the lead branch,” environmental epidemiologist and exposure scientist Erik Svendsen, who is on administrative leave from his position as director of the Division of Environmental Health Science and Practice, told us in a written message. His division, which houses the lead program and has been behind investigations into problems such as illness on cruise ships and lead-tainted children’s food, was entirely eliminated. “The majority of our staff are scientists and front line public health professionals. The rest support us in critical ways,” Svendsen said.

“We have repeatedly heard from HHS leadership that they are ‘streamlining’ and ‘prioritizing’ important topics,” the AFGE union webpage says. “However, staff in each of these ‘priority’ units have simply been eliminated, without any ability to transfer programs or ensure that work continues.”

NIH Cancels Potentially Life-Saving Research

As we have said, Kennedy claimed on May 20 that HHS isn’t abandoning “life-saving” research, despite widespread cuts to NIH grants, including research into cancer, HIV and neurodegenerative disease. He also said during the May 14 House hearing that “we are not withholding any funding for life-saving research.”

Berg, the former National Institute of General Medical Sciences director, told us via email that “life-saving research” has “almost certainly” been halted, given the large number of grant terminations.

Of course, Berg said, the answer depends on how “life-saving research” is defined. If it “requires a specific death that has already occurred that was connected to stoppage of a research grant, then I cannot provide examples,” he said. But if the question is whether “research has been halted that would lead to life-saving advances in the longer term, then this seems extremely likely to be true,” he said

At the May 20 Senate hearing, Sen. Dick Durbin, a Democrat from Illinois, asked Kennedy “why you’ve canceled ALS grants at institutions across this country.”

“Senator, I don’t know about those cuts,” Kennedy said.

Durbin referred to some specific ALS grants, including one to a Harvard researcher terminated “last week.” A Durbin aide told us that the Harvard researcher in question was David Sinclair, a professor of genetics who studies aging.

“We were using [artificial intelligence] to find drugs – old and new – that could treat ALS by reversing the aging process at the epigenetic level,” Sinclair told us via email, referring to the chemical modifications that affect how a person’s genes are expressed. He said that his lab had lost a grant for $438,000 over six years, which covers a lab member’s salary “plus a supplemental amount for a research technician to assist in her work studying motor neuron diseases such as ALS.” He also lost a grant for $1.5 million over five years that “provides the lab’s financial foundation,” he said.

We also heard from a second Harvard researcher, David R. Walt, who said he lost a contract from an NIH lab to his lab to develop a method for testing to determine the progression of a person’s ALS.

“[C]ancelling these types of grants will unquestionably delay the development of new diagnostic tests that can detect disease early, enabling treatments to be administered before the disease progresses to the point where patients suffer debilitating symptoms,” Walt told us via email. “The cancellations will also delay the discovery and introduction of these new drugs that can help delay or prevent disease progression.”

Kennedy said in the Senate hearing that HHS would “fund cutting-edge research at the NIH while cutting risky or nonessential studies,” such as “research based upon radical gender ideology.” But what he called “nonessential” could also be life-saving.

Many canceled grants around the country, for instance, have dealt with LGBTQ+ health. Two groups, including researchers in the field, have now sued HHS and Kennedy for terminating grants focused on LGBTQ+ populations, on topics including risk of cardiovascular problems, HIV, tobacco use, and alcohol use and dating violence.

Epidemiologist Brittany Charlton, founding director of the LGBTQ Health Center of Excellence at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health and Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, wrote in STAT that she is part of a lawsuit objecting to cancelation of her grants looking into stillbirth in lesbians and the effects of anti-LGBTQ+ laws on mental health. “Both projects had the potential to save lives — and both were abruptly shut down,” she wrote.

Editor’s note: FactCheck.org does not accept advertising. We rely on grants and individual donations from people like you. Please consider a donation. Credit card donations may be made through our “Donate” page. If you prefer to give by check, send to: FactCheck.org, Annenberg Public Policy Center, P.O. Box 58100, Philadelphia, PA 19102.