This piece exposes a quiet but profound erosion of scientific integrity: the systematic dismantling of the CDC's peer review system, followed by a frantic, last-minute scramble to preserve it. Jeremy Faust's reporting reveals not just a policy shift, but a deliberate strategy to bypass transparency laws, only to be thwarted by career staff who knew the fine print better than the political appointees. For anyone concerned with how public health data is generated and funded, this is a critical warning sign.
The Architecture of Accountability
Faust begins by establishing the stakes. The CDC does not conduct most of its own research; it outsources it. "The CDC sends around 80% of all the money it receives back out the door," Faust writes, noting that competitive external grants amount to hundreds of millions of dollars annually. This money fuels research into everything from epilepsy to infectious diseases. The mechanism ensuring this money goes to the best science was a rigorous, decades-old peer review process.
The administration's move to dismantle this was swift and opaque. Faust details how, shortly after the new leadership took office, "CDC officials were notified that virtually all active FACA charters covering CDC projects and programs would be revoked, effective immediately." The Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) is the legal framework that allows the government to convene outside experts. Without a FACA charter, the CDC could not legally hold the panels that vetted grant proposals.
The justification offered was bureaucratic efficiency, a theme familiar to those tracking the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) and its broader agenda to shrink federal oversight. Yet, as Faust notes, the result was a system "prone to political influence and cronyism." The administration canceled everything not explicitly required by statute. "None came through," recalled Dr. Debra Houry, the former chief medical officer, regarding the requests to maintain these charters. "They canceled everything that was not statutorily required." This blanket revocation removed the guardrails against internal cronyism, a risk Faust highlights is particularly acute at the CDC, where agency scientists often co-author studies with the very researchers they are supposed to fund.
"A system designed to ensure quality and fairness is scrapped."
Critics might argue that streamlining advisory committees is a legitimate goal to reduce red tape, but Faust's reporting suggests the scale of the cuts was disproportionate to any efficiency gain, targeting the very mechanisms that ensure scientific objectivity.
The Workaround: Career Staff vs. Political Appointees
The story takes a dramatic turn when Faust describes the response from career CDC staff. Faced with the choice of letting hundreds of millions in grants go unfunded or finding a legal loophole, they chose the latter. Faust identifies the key figure in this effort: Dr. Sam Posner, who ran the Office of Science until his retirement.
Posner, described by Faust as a "by the book" official who is now "very retired" and free from political pressure, found a path forward in the fine print. The policy allowed for "field reviews" in specific situations. Unlike the formal FACA panels, field reviews did not require a convened meeting of experts, thus bypassing the need for a charter. "My interest was ensuring that we did everything we could to carry out the mission of the agency," Posner told Faust, dismissing speculation that his retirement influenced the decision.
This workaround was a race against time. The fiscal year was ending on September 30, and the clock was ticking. "I felt bad that the people did not get the kind of review that they usually get, and should get," one external expert told Faust, acknowledging the compromise. While the field reviews lacked the collaborative discussion of the full panels, they at least preserved the input of outside experts. The irony, as Faust points out, is that the administration's attempt to centralize control resulted in a process that gave CDC officers more freedom, yet less guidance, precisely because the structured voting and discussion of the panels were gone.
The DOGE Factor and the Final Hurdle
Just as the CDC staff thought they had secured the funding, a new barrier emerged: the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). Faust reveals that final signatures from DOGE were required, adding a layer of political scrutiny that had not existed before. The administration had previously frozen funds, creating uncertainty for researchers who needed to know if they could keep their staff on payroll.
The timing of the resolution was suspicious. "Then, at last, just a few days before October 1, a flurry of updates appeared in the grants management system," Faust writes. "All (or nearly all) of the CDC's recommended awards had been approved by DOGE." The speed of this approval, coming after months of silence and obstruction, raises questions about the true intent.
Faust offers a compelling theory: the quick approval was a strategic move to defeat a lawsuit. States led by New York Attorney General Letitia James had sued, arguing that firing CDC staff (via RIFs) meant no one was left to process the grants, causing irreparable harm. "If you get rid of CDC staff, there is nobody to process the awards," a former senior leader told Faust. By rushing the approvals just before the fiscal year ended, the administration could argue the money had been spent and the injury was moot. "They literally killed the programs that ensure transparency, objectivity, and fair review without conflicts of interest," one recently fired staffer told Faust, only for DOGE to "quickly rubber-stamp everything at the last possible minute."
"They have the audacity to claim they are defending the spend."
This sequence of events suggests a sophisticated, if cynical, legal maneuver. The administration dismantled the system, then rushed to approve the grants to neutralize legal challenges, all while gutting the staff needed to run the system in the future. Faust notes that by October 10, most of the remaining staff working on these grants were fired. "Some programs' staffers were completely gutted," meaning the field review workaround may not be sustainable next year.
The Specter of Cronyism
The piece concludes by looking ahead. With the staff gone and the formal peer review system dismantled, the door is open for the administration to scrap the field review plan entirely. "Once the government reopens, there is nothing stopping the administration from deciding to scrap the field review plan for next year's cycle," Faust warns. The underlying fear is the introduction of cronyism—funding decisions based on political loyalty rather than scientific merit.
The administration's actions, as detailed by Faust, represent a fundamental shift in how federal science is governed. The removal of FACA charters and the subsequent reliance on a fragile workaround highlight the vulnerability of scientific institutions to political interference. The fact that career staff had to resort to legal loopholes to save the system underscores the severity of the threat.
Critics might suggest that the administration's actions were simply a chaotic attempt to reduce bureaucracy, but the targeted nature of the cuts and the strategic timing of the approvals point to a more calculated effort to reshape the agency. The human cost here is not just in the potential loss of funding, but in the erosion of the public's trust in the scientific process that underpins health policy.
Bottom Line
Jeremy Faust's reporting delivers a damning indictment of an administration willing to dismantle the guardrails of scientific integrity to achieve political goals. The strongest part of the argument is the detailed reconstruction of the legal maneuvering that allowed career staff to save the grants, only to be undercut by mass firings. The biggest vulnerability remains the future: with the staff gone, the system is fragile, and the specter of cronyism looms large. Readers should watch closely to see if the administration attempts to formalize this new, less transparent model for next year's funding cycle.