President Donald Trump’s firings at the Department of Health and Human Services included the entire office that sets federal poverty guidelines, which determine whether tens of millions of Americans are eligible for health programs such as Medicaid, food assistance, child care, and other services, former staff said. The small team, with technical data expertise, worked out of HHS’ Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, or ASPE. Their dismissal mirrored others across HHS, which came without warning and left officials puzzled as to why they were “RIF’ed” — as in “reduction in force,” the bureaucratic language used to describe the firings. “I suspect they RIF’ed offices that had the word ‘data’ or ‘statistics’ in them,” said one of the laid-off employees, a social scientist whom KFF Health News agreed not to name because the person feared further recrimination. “It was random, as far as we can tell.” Among those fired was Kendall Swenson, who had led development of the poverty guidelines for many years and was considered the repository of knowledge on the issue, according to the social scientist and two academics who have worked with the HHS team. The sacking of the office could lead to cuts in assistance to low-income families next year unless the Trump administration restores the positions or moves its duties elsewhere, said Robin Ghertner, the fired director of the Division of Data and Technical Analysis, which had overseen the guidelines. The poverty guidelines are “needed by many people and programs,” said Timothy Smeeding, a professor emeritus of economics at the La Follette School of Public Affairs at the University of Wisconsin. “If you’re thinking of someone you fired who should be rehired, Swenson would be a no-brainer,” he added. Under a 1981 appropriations bill, HHS is required annually to take Census Bureau poverty-line figures, adjust them for inflation, and create guidelines that agencies and states use to determine who is eligible for various types of help. There’s a special sauce for creating the guidelines that includes adjustments and calculations, Ghertner said. Swenson and three other staff members would independently prepare the numbers and quality-check them together before they were issued each January. Everyone in Ghertner’s office was told, without warning, that they were being put on administrative leave until June 1, when their employment would officially end, he said. “There’s literally no one in the government who knows how to calculate the guidelines,” he said. “And because we’re all locked out of our computers, we can’t teach anyone how to calculate them.” ASPE had about 140 staff members and now has about 40, according to a former staffer. The HHS shake-up merged the office with the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, or AHRQ, whose staff has shrunk from 275 to about 80, according to a former AHRQ official who spoke on the condition of anonymity. HHS has said it laid off about 10,000 employees and that, combined with other moves, including a program to encourage early retirements, its workforce has been reduced by about 20,000. But the agency has not detailed where it made the cuts or identified specific employees it fired. “These workers were told they couldn’t come into their offices so there’s no transfer of knowledge,” said Wendell Primus, who worked at ASPE during the Bill Clinton administration. “They had no time to train anyone, transfer data, etc.” HHS defended the firings. The department merged AHRQ and ASPE “as part of Secretary Kennedy’s vision to streamline HHS to better serve Americans,” spokesperson Emily Hilliard said. “Critical programs within ASPE will continue in this new office” and “HHS will continue to comply with statutory requirements,” she said in a written response to KFF Health News. After this article published, HHS spokesperson Andrew Nixon called KFF Health News to say others at HHS could do the work of the RIF’ed data analysis team, which had nine members. “The idea that this will come to a halt is totally incorrect,” he said. “Eighty million people will not be affected.” Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has so far declined to testify about the staff reductions before congressional committees that oversee much of his agency. On April 9, a delegation of 10 Democratic members of Congress waited fruitlessly for a meeting in the agency’s lobby. The group was led by House Energy and Commerce health subcommittee ranking member Diana DeGette (D-Colo.), who told reporters afterward that Kennedy must appear before the committee “and tell us what his plan is for keeping America healthy and for stopping these devastating cuts.” Matt VanHyfte, a spokesperson for the Republican committee leadership, said HHS officials would meet with bipartisan committee staff on April 11 to discuss the firings and other policy issues. ASPE serves as a think tank for the HHS secretary, said Primus, who later was Rep. Nancy Pelosi’s senior health policy adviser for 18 years. In addition to the poverty guidelines, the office maps out how much Medicaid money goes to each state and reviews all regulations developed by HHS agencies. “These HHS staffing cuts — 20,000 — obviously they are completely nuts,” Primus said. “These were not decisions made by Kennedy or staff at HHS. They are being made at the White House. There’s no rhyme or reasons to what they’re doing.” HHS leaders may be unaware of their legal duty to issue the poverty guidelines, Ghertner said. If each state and federal government agency instead sets guidelines on its own, it could create inequities and lead to lawsuits, he said. And sticking with the 2025 standard next year could put benefits for hundreds of thousands of Americans at risk, Ghertner said. The current poverty level is $15,650 for a single person and $32,150 for a family of four. “If you make $30,000 and have three kids, say, and next year you make $31,000 but prices have gone up 7%, suddenly your $31,000 doesn’t buy you the same,” he said, “but if the guidelines haven’t increased, you might be no longer eligible for Medicaid.” The 2025 poverty level for a family of five is $37,650. As of October, about 79 million people were enrolled in Medicaid or the related Children’s Health Insurance Program, both of which are means-tested and thus depend on the poverty guidelines to determine eligibility. Eligibility for premium subsidies for insurance plans sold in Affordable Care Act marketplaces is also tied to the official poverty level. One in eight Americans rely on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or food stamps, and 40% of newborns and their mothers receive food through the Women, Infants, and Children program, both of which also use the federal poverty level to determine eligibility. Former employees in the office said they were not disloyal to the president. They knew their jobs required them to follow the administration’s objectives. “We were trying to support the MAHA agenda,” the social scientist said, referring to Kennedy’s “Make America Healthy Again” rubric. “Even if it didn’t align with our personal worldviews, we wanted to be useful.” KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF — the independent source for health policy research, polling, and journalism.
Trump HHS eliminates office that sets poverty levels tied to benefits for at least 80 million people
TruthLens AI Suggested Headline:
"Trump Administration Disbands Office Setting Federal Poverty Guidelines Impacting Millions"
TruthLens AI Summary
President Donald Trump's recent firings at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) have resulted in the elimination of the entire office responsible for setting federal poverty guidelines. This crucial office, which operated under the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE), played a vital role in determining eligibility for a range of health programs, including Medicaid, food assistance, and child care services, impacting at least 80 million Americans. Former staff members expressed confusion over the abrupt decision, describing it as a 'reduction in force' that appeared random and lacked transparency. Among those laid off was Kendall Swenson, a key figure in the development of poverty guidelines who had accumulated extensive knowledge on the subject over the years. The removal of this office raises concerns about potential cuts to assistance for low-income families in the coming year unless the administration reinstates these positions or reallocates their responsibilities elsewhere. Experts in the field emphasized the importance of these guidelines, noting that without them, many individuals and programs could face significant challenges in delivering necessary support to vulnerable populations.
The firings at HHS are part of a broader trend, with the agency reportedly reducing its workforce by about 20,000 employees, which has led to significant staffing cuts within ASPE. Critics, including former employees and academic experts, have voiced concerns over the lack of knowledge transfer due to the abrupt nature of the layoffs, which left no one in the government capable of calculating the poverty guidelines. HHS officials have defended the decision, claiming that the merger of ASPE and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) aligns with Secretary Kennedy's vision of streamlining operations to better serve Americans. However, there are fears that without the proper guidelines, states may independently set poverty levels, leading to inconsistencies and potential legal challenges. The current federal poverty level is essential for determining eligibility for various assistance programs, and any failure to adjust these figures could jeopardize support for millions of Americans reliant on these services. The situation underscores the critical need for clarity and continuity in policies affecting public health and welfare programs.
TruthLens AI Analysis
The article highlights a significant decision made by the Trump administration that affects millions of Americans by eliminating the office responsible for setting federal poverty guidelines. This move could have far-reaching implications for health and social services, particularly for low-income families relying on programs like Medicaid and food assistance. The abrupt nature of the firings raises questions about the administration's priorities and the potential consequences for vulnerable populations.
Purpose Behind the Decision
The elimination of the office that sets poverty guidelines appears to be a strategic move to streamline operations within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). However, it may also reflect a broader agenda to diminish the role of data and statistical analysis in policymaking. By dismissing a team with expertise in poverty metrics, the administration may be attempting to downplay the importance of poverty-related issues, potentially affecting allocation of resources and services to those in need.
Public Perception
This news is likely to foster a sense of concern and uncertainty among the public, particularly among communities that depend heavily on federal assistance programs. The dismissal of key staff members who have historically contributed to poverty guidelines may evoke feelings of instability and insecurity among low-income families, who fear that their access to essential services could be jeopardized.
Hidden Agendas
There is a possibility that this news is meant to distract the public from other issues facing the administration. By focusing on the firings at HHS, the administration may be attempting to shift attention away from its broader policies or controversies. The lack of transparency surrounding the decision raises suspicions about the underlying motivations.
Truthfulness of the Report
The article appears to rely on credible sources, including former employees and academics, which lends it a degree of reliability. However, the narrative could be framed to evoke a particular emotional response, leading to questions about potential bias in the reporting.
Societal Impacts
The implications of this decision could be profound, potentially leading to cuts in assistance for low-income families and increased poverty rates. Additionally, the elimination of data-driven decision-making may hinder the ability of policymakers to address poverty effectively, leading to a cycle of neglect for vulnerable populations.
Target Audience
The article is likely to resonate with advocacy groups, social scientists, and members of the general public who are concerned about poverty and social justice issues. It appeals to those who are invested in maintaining and improving welfare programs and highlights the potential negative outcomes of the administration's policies.
Market Implications
While the immediate effects on stock markets may be limited, the long-term consequences of reduced federal assistance could impact sectors reliant on consumer spending, particularly those serving low-income families. Companies in the healthcare and social service sectors might see fluctuations based on public sentiment and policy changes stemming from these firings.
Global Perspective
This decision is part of a broader trend observed in many countries, where austerity measures and cuts to social services are being debated. The implications for global poverty and inequality could be significant, as shifts in U.S. policy often influence international perspectives and practices.
AI Involvement
There is no explicit indication that artificial intelligence was used in the writing of this article. However, if AI tools were employed, they may have influenced the framing of the narrative or the selection of sources, potentially guiding the emphasis on certain aspects of the story over others.
In conclusion, while the report is informative and based on credible sources, it serves to highlight the potentially detrimental effects of the administration's decision on vulnerable populations. The implications of this move extend beyond immediate bureaucratic changes, affecting societal dynamics and public welfare.