Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has dismissed more than 1,000 scientists, doctors, and public health officials from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The action, carried out late Friday night amid an ongoing government shutdown, represents one of the most extensive shake-ups of a federal health agency in decades.
The dismissals are part of the Trump administration’s larger initiative to significantly reduce the size of the federal workforce. Reports suggest that more than 4,000 government employees across multiple agencies—including Education, Treasury, Energy, and Housing and Urban Development—were affected. Yet the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) bore the brunt of the layoffs, with entire divisions abruptly dismantled.
Critical CDC Divisions Affected
According to information obtained by MSNBC, the layoffs at the CDC extended across more than a dozen centers, impacting teams responsible for disease surveillance, outbreak response, and data analysis. These divisions play key roles in controlling the spread of infectious diseases, publishing vital scientific data, and communicating with international partners.
Employees described receiving their termination notices by email late Friday, confirming fears that had been building since the start of the shutdown. The dismissals targeted several high-impact offices, including the Immunization and Respiratory Diseases Center, the Global Health Center, and the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR) team—an essential publication used by health experts worldwide.
Confusion and Reversals Follow the Firings
The firings triggered widespread confusion, particularly since many human resources personnel who were supposed to handle the layoffs had themselves been furloughed. Within hours of news reports surfacing, a number of employees began receiving emails rescinding their termination notices.
An HHS official told MSNBC that nearly half of the dismissals were made in error because of a coding problem in the layoff system. Officials confirmed that some key CDC teams, including those responding to global health threats and monitoring outbreaks of Ebola and measles, would be reinstated. Still, senior officials warned that the damage to morale and trust would not be easily undone.
Closure of CDC’s Washington Office Raises Alarm
One of the most striking outcomes of the cuts was the closure of the CDC’s Washington, D.C., office—its main link to Congress and other federal agencies. The closure has effectively cut off direct communication between the CDC’s leadership and lawmakers.
A spokesperson for HHS defended the decision, arguing that the agency had become “too large and inefficient.” The statement emphasized that the dismissals targeted non-essential employees as part of the administration’s ongoing effort to reduce what it views as redundant government structures.
Public Health Risks Amid Disease Outbreaks
The timing of the layoffs has raised deep concern among health professionals. The U.S. is currently facing its worst measles outbreak in three decades, with hundreds of children under quarantine and several deaths reported. Initially, even the CDC’s lead coordinators for measles response were among those dismissed, though they were later reinstated.
Experts warn that disruptions of this scale can have severe consequences for the country’s ability to respond to emergencies. The CDC has traditionally served as the nation’s first line of defense during health crises, and the removal of so many seasoned professionals has left critical gaps in expertise.
Kennedy’s Controversial Tenure and Policy Shifts
Kennedy’s tenure at HHS has been marked by controversy and frequent clashes with scientific consensus. Since taking office eight months ago, he has ordered sweeping budget reductions, dissolved advisory panels, and replaced career scientists with political appointees who share his views.
He has also challenged vaccine safety policies, reversed previous CDC recommendations for children and pregnant women, and questioned long-established scientific findings. These actions have drawn criticism from medical organizations that argue such moves undermine evidence-based policymaking.
