The FDA and its Center for Devices and Radiological Health were among several health-focused agencies caught in sweeping layoffs over the weekend as the Trump administration seeks to cut so-called probationary employees across the U.S. government.
It’s currently unclear how many staff at the FDA have been affected—alongside estimates of thousands of dismissals spanning scientists at the National Institutes of Health, public health officials at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and others at branches across the Department of Health and Human Services—in what has been dubbed by workers as the Valentine’s Day massacre.
Probationary employees include many new hires in their first one to two years of civil service, as well as some longer-term staff who may have recently moved into a new position; they typically have fewer legal protections than other federal workers against being fired without cause.
According to CBS News, many received virtually identical letters Saturday night criticizing their performance, though several reported being told by managers that their performance was not an issue. At the FDA, the layoffs have included staff within user-fee-funded activities, such as reviewing medical products for clearance and approval.
At the CDRH specifically, with its more than 2,000 employees, the cuts have reduced teams tasked with regulating artificial intelligence and digital health programs, according to Stat, despite rapid advancements in the field. This includes AI researchers and Ph.D.-level employees that assist in evaluating imaging devices.
Additionally, several reviewers were let go who had been working on brain-computer interface technologies being developed by Elon Musk's Neuralink, as well as its potential competitors, per reporting from Reuters. Those cuts included about 20 in the FDA’s office of neurological and physical medicine devices.
In a Feb. 16 post on Bluesky, former FDA Commissioner Robert Califf, M.D., said, “I am grieving for the many talented & dedicated FDA employees who have been mistreated & those left to do the work of protecting public health. Also for those who will be harmed by this among patients and the public.”
“Those who are complicit in their silence will be judged harshly by history,” added Califf, who stepped down as head of the agency in January at the start of the Trump administration.
Other recent FDA departures have included its drug center chief, Patrizia Cavazzoni, M.D., as well as the director of the AI-focused Digital Health Center of Excellence, Troy Tazbaz. Elsewhere, Renee Wegrzyn, Ph.D., the head of the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health, also known as ARPA-H, was let go by the HHS—while two senior officials at the NIH, Principal Deputy Director Lawrence Tabak and Deputy Director of Extramural Research Michael Lauer, have also left their roles.
In a statement, the president and CEO of the medical device trade association AdvaMed, Scott Whitaker, said it is critical that the process of getting new and promising technologies to U.S. doctors and patients is not put at risk.
"A strong and effective FDA is an essential element of that process. Patients’ lives, as well as our nation’s global leadership in medtech innovation, manufacturing, and jobs are potentially at stake," Whitaker said. "We are looking closely at this latest action, and will have further comment when we have a better sense of its potential impact."
Later, in a post on LinkedIn, Whitaker said that AdvaMed has sent a letter to the Department of Health and Human Services outlining the association’s concerns.
“We understand and support the administration’s overall goal to be more efficient with the taxpayer dollar. Our concern is that this round of cuts to FDA staff runs counter to that shared goal,” he said.
“AI in health care is a clear, illustrative example,” Whitaker added. “Eliminating FDA’s recent critical new hires in the AI space will dramatically slow review times and require reassigning non-experts already at FDA to review these technologies who will inevitably make slower and potentially inappropriately conservative decisions.”
Editor's note: This story has been updated with statements from AdvaMed.