Former federal workers protest against cuts to government agencies in Washington D.C. Courtesy of Fortune.
Dear Commons Community,
On February 13th, a research entomologist at the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) was among the first, receiving an email after the close of business hours saying they were being “removed” from his job, studying a key problem in agriculture science. The change had gone into effect 14 minutes before the email arrived. “The letter said I was being let go due to poor performance, which is nonsensical since they had just invited me to apply for a promotion…” the stunned researcher says. As reported by Science.
Thousands of other federal scientists were similarly shocked over subsequent days as President Donald Trump’s administration unleashed a massive, unprecedented, and chaotic wave of firings across the U.S. government. The job losses—guided by the White House’s semiofficial Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) run by billionaire entrepreneur Elon Musk—struck tens of thousands of workers. Most were among some 200,000 probationary workers in the 2.4 million person federal workforce—people who had recently been hired or transferred to a new position, and enjoyed fewer job protections. The layoffs decimated the foot soldiers of many health and science agencies, sweeping up early-career scientists as well as old hands in new positions. Scores of scientists working as federal contractors received termination notices as well.
The total tally of dismissed scientists remains unclear. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)—which includes the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)—planned to cut “∼5200” employees, according to a 14 February internal NIH memo, but some got eleventh hour reprieves.
At NIH, where institute directors were alerted to the imminent firings at a hastily called Friday morning meeting, about 1500 employees were initially scheduled to be cut, but the list dropped below 1200 after some got designated as essential; at CDC an early list targeted almost 1300 but later shrank to 750. On 18 February, the National Science Foundation dismissed 168 employees, roughly 10% of its workforce. After broad firings at FDA, its deputy commissioner for human food resigned over the 89 people cut from his division. Other science agencies expect dismissals as DOGE marches on.
Senior members of U.S. scientific leadership were also axed last week. Lawrence Tabak, former acting director of NIH who still held the second highest role there, was forced to retire. HHS also fired bioengineer Renee Wegrzyn, director of the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health, a $1.5 billion agency created 3 years ago to fund high-risk, high-payoff biomedical research.
Although the final toll on science agencies may not exceed the number of staff who retire, resign, or otherwise leave government each year, observers fear the abrupt and seemingly indiscriminate firings could hamper vital research and waste money. “This is truly a national tragedy and one that is being executed by people who do not understand the value of scientific research,” says molecular biologist Shirley Tilghman, former president of Princeton University and longtime adviser to NIH directors.
Administration statements and sources defended the cuts as strategic measures to increase efficiency, saying they are well-planned and affect less important employees. But critics note the probationary firings swept away recently promoted veteran federal scientists and experienced researchers who had just been lured to government service. They also say the chaotic rollout, which included lastminute scrambles to remove employees from to-be-fired lists and rehire needed people, reflected hastiness.
For example, dozens of physicians in subspecialty training, research nurses, and other essential staff at NIH’s massive Clinical Center were short-listed to be fired, according to sources. But hours before notification they were removed from the list; their absence could have closed the facility, jeopardizing hundreds of often deeply ill patients and ruining biomedical studies.
Members of CDC’s famed disease outbreak training program, the Epidemic Intelligence Services were told last week that their positions had been eliminated. But the decision was reversed over the weekend after an uproar. Those in an equally prestigious but less visible CDC program, the Laboratory Leadership Service, were not spared. And despite the stated intent of the new HHS secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., to focus on combating chronic diseases, CDC eliminated contractors at its National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion.
One, who worked on cardiovascular disease, messaged on Signal: “Half of my team (we work on epidemiology and surveillance) is contractors and we have all been terminated within a few short hours.”
At the National Nuclear Security Administration, a part of the Department of Energy that manages nuclear weapons, officials reportedly scrambled to rehire key technical staff—but couldn’t reach them because their government emails had been disconnected.
Some science leaders argued the Trump administration is not specifically targeting research. “Science seems to be collateral damage to these [downsizing] efforts that are almost random, by date of hire or date of promotion,” says Sudip Parikh, CEO of AAAS, the world’s largest science society. “It’s not strategic. It’s not based on the needs of the future, the needs of science.” (AAAS publishes Science but the News team operates independently.)
Much remained uncertain as Science went to press, including whether some firings will withstand legal challenges. Congress may also eventually push back; NIH, for example, has strong bipartisan support.
Parikh and others said this year’s funding levels for the science agencies, due to be decided in Congress over the next few weeks, will determine the fate of many more federal scientists and the research they oversee. “The next month is probably one of the most important months in the history of science and technology in the United States—and I’m not one to tend to hyperbole,” Parikh told attendees at the AAAS annual meeting in Boston last weekend.
Since the firings began, Science has communicated with dozens of current and former federal scientists, who often asked to remain anonymous. They have described tear-filled meetings and critical work being interrupted. “It’s pretty horrific,” one said. “The abrupt way this was implemented prevented us from even being able to prioritize what data needed to be collected or to transfer that data in an orderly way to collaborators,” another wrote.
Dismissed federal scientists expressed fear over finances and lamented the destruction of a long-running bargain where they provide applied research or services for the U.S. government in exchange for a secure career. One fired U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) postdoc was working on an invasive species problem with “huge economic implications” and had wanted to mirror his mom who worked for a federal agency for 20 years. After his termination notice, the shocked postdoc still hoped to salvage work before losing computer access. “I’m trying to quickly share code and files with people who are still going to be at the research center … I don’t know who’s going to be able to pick up this,” he said on the day of his firing.
At NIH, some newly hired or promoted division directors had to call junior staff to inform them of their impending firings while knowing they, too, were targeted for termination. And one U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) employee who serves in a manager role described a colleague who is living in government housing and had 7 days to move out. “It’s insane,” the manager says. “We lost about 40% of the staff” at that office, they add.
Many of the fired workers worry about finding another job in a private or academic market flooded with government scientists. “My wife is 6 months pregnant and we are scrambling to make sure we stay insured through the birth and beyond,” one former USDA researcher told Science. “[I feel] betrayed, gutted, lost, anxious, and furious,” says one biologist who received a termination notice from FWS. “I have a mortgage, a car payment, prescriptions, and other bills to pay and not much savings to fall back on.”
Beyond the personal toll, the firings threaten ongoing science, including key agricultural and health surveillance efforts. One USDA bird flu scientist kept a job but had to say goodbye to several colleagues. “We all work on high pathogenicity avian influenza—seems like an absolutely reckless time to fire qualified scientists who are directly involved in monitoring and responding to this virus right now,” the scientist wrote.
Many of the termination notices seen by or described to Science cite inadequate performance as justification. For example, letters emailed to multiple USDA researchers reference a 2005 report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board that stated that until an employee’s probationary period is over, they have “the burden to demonstrate why it is in the public interest for the Government to finalize an appointment to the civil service.” The letters then go on to say: “The Agency finds, based on your performance, that you have not demonstrated that your further employment at the Agency would be in the public interest.”
But some employees had never even had a manager’s review. “The claim this is performance based is objectively false,” one USDA scientist says. “To argue that I’m not adequate in my job is asinine, delinquent, delirious,” vented a fired USGS scientist.
Risa Lieberwitz, a labor and employment law expert at Cornell University, says the way the mass firings were implemented contradicts regulations written by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management. She notes that the purpose of the probationary period is to thoroughly evaluate a person’s performance before they’re given a permanent government post. “The regulations are not written in a way to simply give carte blanche to the government to decide to terminate an employee … for any reason.”
Some of the fired employees have formed chat groups outside official channels. One former USGS biologist is part of a Signal group that is discussing “how and if we can file for unemployment, how to make a formal complaint to our supervisors about our firing if we believe it was illegal, [how] and what class action lawsuits that are popping up might be applicable.” Last week five unions representing federal workers filed a class action lawsuit to stop the firings; the first emergency court hearing on the matter was scheduled for this week.
Many scientists also plan to appeal their termination directly. One fired worker, who spoke to Science a few minutes after taking a call from an attorney’s office, said, “It’s bad, but I’m not gonna lay down and roll over. I’m going to do my due diligence. … Got to stay positive.”
Tony
