Employees at the CDC are now required to have their documents reviewed by the executive branch before publication.

Hapabapa/Getty Images

toggle caption

Hapabapa/Getty Images

According to NPR, the atmosphere at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is anything but typical, as current and former officials express their concerns. Although there has been a slight relaxation of previous restrictions on external communications, stringent new review processes implemented by political appointees, appointed by the Trump Administration, remain firmly in place. This has heightened worries over potential significant job reductions within the agency.

A senior CDC official, who wishes to remain anonymous, revealed, “Currently, the administration dictates which topics can be discussed and which are off-limits.”

Directions regarding permitted communication are primarily shared verbally, often through phone calls, with little documentation being provided, officials noted. Leadership from the Department of Health and Human Services regularly monitors outgoing information from the CDC, imposing additional restrictions on what career scientists can publish.

An internal memo recently reviewed by NPR directed certain CDC staff to ensure that language used in external communications adheres to Executive Orders. The memo emphasizes, “When in doubt, seek approval.” Furthermore, it clarifies that allowable communications include critical public health notifications, clinician advisories, legally mandated communications, travel health alerts, and routine business operations involving grants.

Concerns grow that scientific research may be compromised, posing risks to several studies. Authors of scientific papers are advised to withdraw their submissions if they conflict with the president’s executive orders, particularly regarding gender issues. If some co-authors are not federal employees, CDC researchers are encouraged to request the removal of their names from the author lists.

Other messages communicated to CDC staff suggest a broader restriction. During a call with leadership, a senior CDC official indicated that this directive encompasses all papers, irrespective of their subject matter, effectively halting any submissions to external journals for the time being.

The research efforts at the CDC span a wide array of health topics, including infectious diseases, environmental hazards, and mental health, among others.

Dr. Anne Schuchat, a former deputy director at the CDC, expressed disappointment at these developments. “It’s disheartening and potentially damaging to witness articles that have successfully navigated the peer-review process needing to be retracted,” she mentioned. “We have come to rely on the CDC’s scientific communication for American health, and the notion of it being delayed or possibly suppressed is indeed troubling.”

This situation negatively impacts the morale of dedicated scientists, according to Dr. Sonja Rasmussen, a professor at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine and a former CDC employee. “The repercussions will be quite adverse,” she remarked.

Concerns persist regarding the Trump administration’s ongoing attempts to limit the information disseminated by the CDC, especially after the removal of data from official websites and disruptions affecting the CDC’s long-standing Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. Although publication resumed last week after a short hiatus, some research tied to the recent outbreak is experiencing delays.

“I genuinely worry that the CDC’s capacity to communicate effectively with the public is undermined,” Dr. Rasmussen, who previously held the position of editor-in-chief of MMWR, stated.

Editors from leading medical journals are vocally opposing the Trump administration’s directive that compels scientists to retract their submitted work if it conflicts with executive policies. Dr. Alfredo Morabia, editor of the American Journal of Public Health, asserted that they would refuse to alter any previously accepted article’s authorship or content.

“We can’t simply start censoring established content. That’s unfeasible,” Morabia explained to NPR. “Those who seek valid science should stand firmly against this.”

Future submissions might allow more flexibility, provided the language remains clear and precise. However, Morabia admitted that accurately addressing certain public health subjects may be challenging without utilizing now-inappropriate terms and concepts.

Dr. Michael Iademarco, who led the CDC’s Center for Surveillance, Epidemiology, and Laboratory Services from 2014 until 2022, noted that he had witnessed attempts by the first Trump administration to manipulate MMWR during the pandemic but confirmed that they were ultimately unsuccessful. “We maintained the integrity of our science and communication,” he stated.

But those in the current CDC and HHS echo concerns that the new Trump administration’s requirements for even more exhaustive reviews might impede crucial scientific data dissemination.

Have insights on the ongoing changes within the federal government? Connect with these authors through encrypted messaging: Will Stone @WstoneReports.95 and Pien Huang @pienhuang.88

Edited by Carmel Wroth