Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is shaking up Washington by “draining the swamp” and eliminating 20,000 jobs at HHS, slashing billions in spending from what he calls the “biggest agency in government.”
AT A GLANCE
- RFK Jr. is cutting 20,000 positions from HHS—half layoffs, half retirements or buyouts.
- Contract spending across all divisions is being slashed by 35%.
- Agencies affected include the CDC, FDA, NIH, and Medicare/Medicaid services.
- HHS’s $1.9 trillion budget—larger than the Pentagon’s—spends just 1% on staff.
- Critics call the cuts dangerous; supporters say it’s long-overdue reform.
HHS Faces Historic Shakeup Under RFK Jr.
In a dramatic overhaul of America’s largest federal agency, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has begun slashing 20,000 jobs across the HHS apparatus. Half of these cuts come via layoffs, with the rest through retirements and buyouts. As detailed by NPR, the changes impact the CDC, FDA, NIH, and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services—marking the most sweeping reform of the department in decades.
RFK Jr. framed the move as a long-overdue correction. “This is the biggest agency in government, twice the size of the Pentagon—$1.9 trillion dollars,” he told the New York Times. Despite its size, only about 1% of that money goes to actual personnel. The rest is funneled through entitlement programs and private sector contracts—prompting RFK Jr. to target administrative overhead and what he called “bureaucratic waste.”
Among the most controversial changes: elimination of entire HHS divisions, including worker safety units and even the CDC’s FOIA office. Critics warn that transparency and preparedness may suffer, though legal FOIA compliance remains in place.
Critics Decry Cuts to Public Health Infrastructure
Reactions from public health experts have been swift—and scathing. “This is at best getting water from a stone,” said Dr. Georges Benjamin, executive director of the American Public Health Association. “They seem to be on a quest to totally destroy the infrastructure of the nation’s public health system.” He and others warn that defunding initiatives tied to infectious diseases, minority health, injury prevention, and drug approvals could weaken U.S. readiness for future health crises.
Nonetheless, HHS insists the goal is smarter spending. Andrew Nixon, a department spokesperson, emphasized that the 35% cut to contract spending was “a strategic initiative” meant to streamline services, not sabotage them. “Every agency within HHS is committed to reducing contract expenditures by this target,” Nixon said. “These cuts are designed to ensure that every dollar is used more efficiently.”
Watch coverage of RFK Jr.’s HHS cuts and their implications.
The Bigger Picture: Restructuring Public Health Priorities
The restructuring also includes a broader agency reorganization. The Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response is being merged into the CDC, while a new office—the Administration for Healthy America—is being created to refocus public health strategy. This comes in response to lingering criticism that HHS, despite receiving massive funding during the COVID pandemic, failed to deliver proportionate improvements in health outcomes.
RFK Jr. and his allies argue that ballooning federal spending has produced a sprawling system long on bureaucracy but short on results. “[With all the money and personnel being brought in,] we haven’t seen better outcomes,” he said, paraphrasing findings reported in the New York Times.
Reform or Recklessness?
The HHS cuts mark a defining moment in RFK Jr.’s tenure and reflect the broader shift under the Trump administration toward leaner, results-driven governance. While critics lament the loss of jobs and fear diminished public health capacity, supporters argue the move is long overdue.
For decades, HHS has expanded with little scrutiny while Americans faced rising chronic illness, poor pandemic coordination, and an increasingly medicalized system. Whether Kennedy’s reforms represent the start of a healthier approach—or the dismantling of a vital safety net—may depend on what follows these bold first steps.
