As the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) faces a barrage of scrutiny and suspicion from the public, a fresh controversy has erupted within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). On August 22, 2025, HHS confirmed it will no longer recognize unions for thousands of federal health agency employees, a move that has sparked outrage among labor advocates and further unsettled an already embattled agency. The decision, which also involves reclaiming office space and equipment previously used for union activities, is part of a larger effort by the Trump administration to curtail collective bargaining rights for federal employees—a campaign that has already affected the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Environmental Protection Agency, among others, according to the Associated Press.
This latest development comes at a time when the CDC is already under fire, facing widespread suspicion of public health initiatives. The agency’s struggles have been compounded by the leadership of Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who currently heads HHS. According to Slate, Kennedy has not taken any significant steps to quell growing public mistrust in the nation’s public health apparatus, a problem that has metastasized into something far more dangerous than simple skepticism. The CDC’s anti-vaccine history and ongoing leadership controversies have only fueled the fire, leaving the agency with a credibility crisis at a moment when public confidence is more vital than ever.
The union action is seen by many as a significant blow to the morale and stability of the federal health workforce. HHS spokesman Andrew Nixon defended the department’s decision, stating, “This action ensures that HHS resources and personnel are fully focused on safeguarding the health and security of the American people.” But officials with the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), the union representing many of these workers, sharply disagreed. They argue that strong union contracts do not hinder but rather support robust responses to public health emergencies by fostering a stable, experienced, and supported workforce. The union contends that agencies like the CDC rely on these protections to maintain the high standards required during crises.
For many CDC employees, the union has been more than just a bargaining agent—it has served as a crucial source of information and advocacy, especially during turbulent times. In 2025, as layoffs rippled through the agency and in the wake of the August 8 attack at the CDC’s main campus in Atlanta, the union stepped up, pushing for a better emergency alert system and improved security measures. Employees credit the union for being a steadying force during these unsettling events, advocating for their safety and well-being as the agency navigated a series of crises.
The reach of the HHS decision is broad, impacting not only the CDC but also the Food and Drug Administration, the National Institutes of Health, the Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response, and the Office of Refugee Resettlement within the Administration for Children and Families. The move follows a May 2025 appeals court decision that allowed the Trump administration to proceed with its executive order ending collective bargaining rights for hundreds of thousands of federal employees, even as a lawsuit challenging the order continues to play out.
According to the Associated Press, the administration’s rationale is clear: by eliminating union recognition, HHS believes it can better direct resources and personnel toward its core mission of protecting American health and security. But critics argue that this approach is shortsighted. The AFGE warns that undermining collective bargaining rights could erode the experience and institutional knowledge that agencies like the CDC depend on, especially during emergencies when swift, coordinated action is required.
“Strong union contracts do not hinder strong responses to public health emergencies. Rather, they help make agencies like the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have a stable, experienced and supported workforce,” the union stated, as reported by the Associated Press. This sentiment is echoed by many within the CDC, who point to the union’s role in advocating for improved safety protocols and communication systems following the recent attack in Atlanta. The union’s efforts to secure a better emergency alert system and heightened security have resonated deeply with employees still reeling from the incident.
The broader context for these developments is a climate of increasing mistrust in public health institutions. As Slate notes, suspicion of public health has grown into a significant threat, with anti-vaccine sentiment and leadership controversies at the CDC compounding the problem. The agency’s credibility has taken repeated hits, making it difficult to convey critical health messages or implement effective public health policies. The leadership of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has been particularly contentious, with critics charging that he has failed to address or counteract the growing wave of skepticism and misinformation surrounding public health guidance.
For longtime observers of the CDC and federal health agencies, this confluence of labor unrest and public suspicion is unprecedented. The CDC, once regarded as the gold standard for disease surveillance and outbreak response, now finds itself fighting battles on multiple fronts: defending its scientific integrity, safeguarding its workforce, and restoring public trust. The loss of union protections, many fear, could further destabilize an agency already stretched thin by political pressures and public hostility.
Meanwhile, the Trump administration’s broader campaign against collective bargaining for federal employees shows no signs of abating. The Department of Veterans Affairs and the Environmental Protection Agency have already been swept up in similar moves, and the administration’s willingness to press forward—despite ongoing legal challenges—signals a fundamental shift in the relationship between federal agencies and their workers. An appeals court decision in May 2025 gave the administration the green light to proceed with its executive order, even as unions continue to fight the measure in court.
Amid this turmoil, the CDC’s mission remains as critical as ever. The agency is tasked with monitoring disease outbreaks, guiding vaccination campaigns, and advising the public during health emergencies. But as internal strife mounts and public suspicion lingers, the path forward looks increasingly fraught. Employees and union leaders warn that the erosion of collective bargaining rights could make it harder to recruit and retain the talent needed to fulfill the CDC’s vital mission.
“The union has been a source of information and advocacy for the agency’s employees during layoffs this year and in the wake of the Aug. 8 attack at the CDC’s main campus in Atlanta,” the Associated Press reported, highlighting just how integral the union has become to the agency’s day-to-day operations and crisis response.
As the legal battles continue and the CDC works to rebuild its standing with the public, the stakes could hardly be higher. The intersection of labor rights, public health credibility, and political controversy has left the nation’s premier health agency at a crossroads, with its future—and the health of the American people—hanging in the balance.
