By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Approximately 10,000 HHS employees were laid off as part of a restructuring effort, with Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. acknowledging that roughly 20% of these cuts were erroneous. The reinstatement of wrongly terminated personnel, including those from the CDC’s Lead Poisoning Prevention and Surveillance Branch, is underway. This correction aligns with the DOGE task force’s initial plan to account for potential mistakes within the 80/20 cut model. The impacted programs and specific individuals targeted for reinstatement remain largely unclear, though some FDA employees have already been temporarily rehired.
Read the original article here
RFK Jr. recently acknowledged that a significant portion of the recent health agency layoffs – approximately 20% – might be erroneous. This admission suggests a considerable level of miscalculation in the initial downsizing process. The sheer scale of the mistake is unsettling, raising serious questions about the planning and execution of the cuts.
The admission itself hints at a rushed and potentially reckless approach to the layoffs. It implies a lack of thorough review and careful consideration of the impact on individual roles and the overall functioning of the agencies involved. This raises concerns about the potential long-term consequences of these hasty decisions.
The fact that the error rate is estimated to be as high as 20% underscores a serious flaw in the process. It suggests a systemic issue, not just isolated incidents of misjudgment. This raises troubling questions about the competence of those responsible for overseeing the layoffs. It also highlights the potential for irreparable damage to critical programs and services.
A specific example cited was the elimination of the CDC’s Lead Poisoning Prevention and Surveillance Branch, a move that is clearly causing concern. This speaks to the potential impact these mistakes are having on public health and safety. The potential fallout from this kind of error is far-reaching and could have devastating consequences.
The comment that “20% of those are going to have to be reinstated, because we’ll make mistakes” indicates a certain level of acceptance of failure upfront. This reveals a lack of proactive planning and a cavalier attitude toward the potential repercussions of the layoff decisions. This proactive admission of error, while seemingly positive, still paints a picture of flawed processes and a lack of due diligence.
The admission that mistakes were made is only the first step. The larger concern is the potential ripple effects of these layoffs. It is not only about reinstating those wrongly dismissed; it’s about the damage to morale, the disruption to ongoing projects, and the potential loss of irreplaceable expertise within the affected agencies.
The suggestion that this approach is akin to running a business, rather than a government agency responsible for public health, is deeply problematic. While efficiency is always a desirable goal, it should never come at the cost of effective and ethical service provision. The lives and wellbeing of citizens should not be treated as mere numbers on a spreadsheet.
The overall feeling is one of deep concern and apprehension. The initial downsizing, even with the proposed reinstatement of 20%, represents a significant disruption to the health agencies’ capabilities. The potential for long-term damage to crucial public health initiatives is a serious and legitimate fear. The lack of thorough planning and oversight, the admission of potential mistakes, and the impact on essential services all underscore a deeply troubling situation.
The suggested 20% figure, while alarming in itself, could potentially be a conservative estimate. The lack of a comprehensive review process before the layoffs raises the suspicion that the actual number of wrongly terminated employees could be considerably higher. It emphasizes the need for a thorough and transparent investigation into the entire layoff process.
The casual admission of making such large-scale errors shows a lack of concern for the impact on employees and the public they serve. The suggestion of simply “hiring back later” reveals a callous disregard for the human cost of these actions and the disruption caused to the lives of the individuals affected. The focus should be on avoiding future errors, rather than accepting them as an inevitable part of the process. It is difficult to understand how such an approach can be acceptable when dealing with government agencies responsible for critical public services.
Ultimately, the entire situation highlights a failure of leadership and a serious disregard for the well-being of both the employees and the public. The initial decisions were poorly conceived and implemented, and the response only serves to underscore the gravity of the problems. The lack of thoroughness in the process leaves many questions unanswered and raises serious concerns about the future of these critical public health agencies.