FDA rehires some laid-off staff, though some fear lasting damage to trust

A week after firing hundreds of its probationary workers, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has pulled an about-face and is asking some of those it laid off to return to their jobs.

FDA’s human resources department called and emailed an undisclosed number of recently laid-off staff and asked them to return to their jobs over the weekend. Despite the partial reversal, sources who spoke to Focus said that the damage has already been done in terms of trust and morale.

Just one week prior, news broke that scores of FDA probationary workers were laid off as part of the Trump Administration’s plan to reduce the size of the federal workforce. One such FDA worker told Focus that HR called them on Saturday asking them to come back to their job and then sent a confirmation email stating their termination letter was officially rescinded. (RELATED: Firing of FDA probationary staff creates widespread uncertainty, Regulatory Focus 17 February 2025)

“Your termination letter is officially rescinded effective immediately and your IT and physical security access will be restored soon,” said the email. “An exception to retain you has been granted by leadership.”

“Please work with your supervisor to get back online,” the email added. “We are so grateful to still have you working for the FDA and serving the American public!”

The source, who asked to remain anonymous for fear of professional reprisal, said most of the reviewers on their team at the Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) who had been fired in the past week were asked to return.

“It seems like many or most CDRH reviewers have been called back,” the source said. “HR was working all throughout the weekend to call and email people,” the source said.

Focus contacted the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), FDA, and the White House to seek clarification about the reversal and how many recently laid-off workers were being asked to return. However, as of the time of publishing, they have not responded.

The FDA source said they think industry pressure to rehire staff, especially those being paid through user fees, led to the reversal. They noted that they are primarily seeing staff who were paid through user fees being rehired to their positions. The source added that they are cautiously optimistic about their future at the agency but are happy to have their job back.

“I feel like we may be protected because of the user fee argument, but who really knows?” the source said. “I am anxious though. I’m not sure how much more toxic and uncomfortable certain people may make the work environment.”

Former FDA Commissioner Robert Califf told Focus that while it is good that FDA staff are being recalled, the administration’s actions have eroded trust within the agency.

“I think it’s a lot better to ask people to come back than to not do so. They are needed for vital functions,” said Califf. “But this begs the question of how we can trust people who didn’t take the time to figure that out before disrupting the lives of hard-working people.”

“If you were fired with no warning via email with a message which is an outright lie about your job performance, knowing that it came from a group of techies with almost no real-world experience or ability to actually assess your value or performance, would you trust these people?” he asked.

While Califf isn't sure why the administration reversed course, he suspects they were swayed by pressure from regulated industries, patient groups, and experienced Republicans who understand the detrimental effects the decision could have on products getting to market and patients. The former commissioner said he has no connections to the administration decision-makers but has been trying to inform those who do have influence with the administration.

“But most of [the FDA staff] will come back because they are good, hard-working people who are dedicated to the mission of protecting the public health while stimulating innovation,” said Califf. “I find that dedication inspirational in the face of extreme duress.”

Allison Komiyama, a regulatory consultant at RQM+, echoed the sentiment that FDA staff have lost faith in the agency on LinkedIn, stating the news remains consistently unpredictable.

"Yes, there are many probationary FDA employees (especially CDRH folks) who were fired last week that are getting the call to come back to work," said Komiyama. "For many, the damage is done, the writing remains on the wall, and the trauma cannot be reversed."

"Some I've talked to already have job interviews lined up with industry positions (noice)! I not-so-secretly hope that many take the offer to return as we need reviewers at FDA" she added. "Many of the folks being asked to return were primarily funded by industry user fees and not tax payer money."

Last week, the industry lobby group AdvaMed wrote to HHS asking the administration to reverse the firing and told Focus that they wanted to resolve the issue without using congressional pressure and resorting to legal options. AdvaMed CEO Scott Whitaker told Focus after the weekend’s news broke that it was good news that a sizeable number of expert reviewers are returning to FDA. (RELATED: AdvaMed urges Trump administration to reverse FDA layoffs, Regulatory Focus 21 February 2025)

“This would be welcome news, and I appreciate the administration for acting quickly,” said Whitaker. “We all share the same goal—an efficient, effective FDA review process that helps advance the medical technologies American patients depend on. Bringing these specific experts back would help fulfill that mission.”

Steven Grossman, an FDA regulatory consultant and author of FDA Matters, argued that the Trump administration is legally within its right to fire staff paid through user fees. In a blog post on 23 February, he said FDA employees can be fired as part of the administration's reduction in force (RIF) measures, regardless of funding, and it does not affect the user fee agreements. He also stated he is unsure how user fee deadlines may be affected.

“Despite common usage that suggests otherwise: even if an employee’s entire salary is paid from user fees, it does not make them ‘a user fee employee’ distinct from other employees,” Grossman wrote. “Rather, user fees support full-time-equivalent slots (FTE’s), not individuals.”

“For accounting purposes, an employee may be paid—in whole or part—by user fees or [budget authority (BA)] (appropriated) monies, depending on the activities they are engaged in and the availability of user fee and appropriated (BA) support,” he added.

FDA rehires some laid-off staff, though some fear lasting damage to trust

Related topics

Recommended content

Welcome to the new RAPS Digital Experience