Johnson’s radical changes Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Health Care HHS Robert F. And he’s been pretty explicit that he plans to do that by cutting his own agency—by 10,000 full-time employees. This decision joins the more than 10,000 department staffers that have departed the department since President Donald Trump’s inauguration. All but a small handful of these departures took place via voluntary separation windows. The Wall Street Journal was the first to report on these coming job cuts.
The HHS is responsible for so much of what’s important right now from vaccines to medicines. This $1.7 trillion agency oversees all scientific research, our public health infrastructure, pandemic preparedness, and the regulation of our food and tobacco supply. Despite this further cut of 10% in staff, all health services will go on without interruptions. The proposed closure of five of the agency’s ten regional offices would not affect these vital services.
The anticipated cuts would decrease the department’s workforce to just 62,000 total employees. This prudent restructuring effort would echo and help realize Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s vision. He believes that making healthy food prescriptions a higher priority than drug therapies is the cornerstone of his agenda. His platform, called “Make America Healthy Again,” focuses on addressing the chronic disease epidemic. It works every day to make the country’s children and adults healthier.
Kennedy’s mission at the time was part of a larger strategy by the new Administration to redefine the public health agenda at HHS. With Kennedy’s help, they plan to cultivate a more holistic approach to health management. They’re achieving this by making government more efficient and focusing on prevention and healthy lifestyles. HHS is promising that its basic functions will be fully funded.
At first glance, the implications of these changes at HHS are extensive and far-reaching. Supporters of the job cuts argue they’re necessary to streamline operations, allowing people to focus on new health initiatives. Others fear that such changes could destabilize the delivery of service and ability to oversee the new changes.