The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) laid off a large number of staff this week, including those responsible for handling public records requests under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The cuts are part of a broader reduction of up to 10,000 positions at HHS, initiated under the Trump administration. Among those most affected are teams that process FOIA requests, a vital component in ensuring government transparency within federal health agencies.
The staff responsible for processing FOIA requests have long been the unsung heroes in facilitating the public’s access to critical government documents. These records often include information on drug safety, public health decisions, and the inner workings of agencies like the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the National Institutes of Health (NIH).
However, the layoffs have decimated FOIA offices across these agencies. Entire teams were disbanded, and some FOIA offices were placed on administrative leave, leading to widespread concerns about the future of government transparency. At a time when the public has increasingly relied on FOIA requests to hold agencies accountable, these cuts could have dire consequences for the flow of critical information.
Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has publicly championed the idea of “radical transparency” within the agency. However, critics have pointed out the irony of this pledge in light of the recent staff cuts. Jason R. Baron, a former director of litigation at the National Archives and Records Administration and a current professor at the University of Maryland, stated that these cuts contradicted the very notion of transparency.
“These are the American people’s records, and there should be adequate FOIA staff to ensure that record requests are answered promptly,” said Baron. “Firing your staff is antithetical to openness and transparency.”
Baron also highlighted the potential legal consequences of these layoffs, predicting that the cuts will lead to more litigation and judicial scrutiny. “HHS may be able to fire FOIA staff, but this Administration can’t wish away its FOIA obligations under present law.”
Baron warned that the layoffs would lead to “exponentially” increased backlogs and delays for health-related public records requests, potentially stalling important investigations, litigation, and journalistic endeavors.
Gunita Singh, an attorney with the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, noted that even when requests are processed, the response times are already long due to understaffed FOIA offices. With these layoffs, the delays will only get worse, leaving the public without the transparency that is supposed to be guaranteed by law. “This move is honestly outrageous,” Singh said. “Why anyone would think putting transparency on the chopping block is a good idea is beyond me.”
This could result in heightened legal battles over FOIA compliance, adding even more strain to an already overburdened system. Moreover, as agencies face lawsuits over their failure to meet FOIA deadlines, the public’s access to essential government information could be further delayed.
Beyond the immediate impact on transparency, the staff cuts also jeopardize key services for vulnerable populations. Programs like Meals on Wheels, which provides food to homebound seniors, are at risk due to the loss of staff overseeing their administration. This is particularly concerning given that many of the departments overseeing programs for seniors and the disabled also saw significant reductions. The cuts signal a disturbing trend that could lead to the erosion of services for some of the nation’s most vulnerable citizens, further exacerbating the challenges facing them.
Public access to government documents and records is a cornerstone of democracy, and these cuts raise serious questions about the federal government’s commitment to openness and accountability. Whether HHS can continue to meet its obligations under FOIA, and how long the public will have to wait for access to crucial health-related documents, remains to be seen.