Changes at the VA cause chaos and confusion. Some VA officials are scrambling to roll back cuts.

The VA treats 9.1 million veterans, and almost a quarter
live in rural America. (Adobe Stock photo)

A ripple effect from staff firings and hiring freezes at the Department of Veterans Affairs has already impacted veteran care and medical research. Some worry what deeper cuts could bring, report Roni Caryn Rabin and Nicholas Nehamas of The New York Times. The swift changes pushed by Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency have "disrupted studies involving patients awaiting experimental treatments, forced some facilities to fire support staff and created uncertainty."

Despite the Trump administration's promise to "preserve core patient services," DOGE fired employees who provide basic services, including "workers who purchase medical supplies, schedule appointments and arrange rides for patients to see their doctors. Many are veterans themselves," the Times reports. "All were 'probationary' employees, meaning they were relatively new on the job and had fewer legal protections."

The promised "much deeper round of cuts — eliminating some 80,000 jobs and reviewing tens of thousands of contracts" has some Republicans worried, Rabin and Nehamas explain. "The V.A. is one of the most politically sensitive departments in the government, serving a constituency courted heavily by Republicans, including Trump." Almost a quarter of the 9.1 million veterans the VA serves live in rural America, a segment of the population that also favored Trump in the 2024 election.

The VA's long history of waste and questionable spending make it an unsurprising DOGE target. "A report by the agency’s inspector general’s office noted 'improper and unknown' payments totaling $3.2 billion in fiscal year 2023," the Times reports."In an initial push, the V.A. tried to cancel roughly 875 contracts [which included] services like sterilizing medical equipment, maintaining boilers and generators, filling prescriptions. . . .V.A. officials were soon making frantic appeals to roll some of [the cuts] back."

A new proposal to cut down on medical research costs could lead to less medical research

Less funding could lead to less
medical research. (CDC photo)

The Trump Administration proposed to reduce the size of medical research grants conducted by institutions, including hospitals and state universities.

If it goes through, indirect medical research funds would be reduced to a set 15%. However, the proposal has been “put on hold by a federal court,” according to an article by Emily Badger, Aatish Bhatia, Irineo Cabreros, Eli Murray, Francesca Paris, Margot Sanger-Katz and Ethan Singer at The New York Times.

The Times reported that in 2024, $32 billion was spent on medical research, with $23 billion having gone toward direct costs and the remaining $9 billion toward indirect costs. These indirect costs include laboratory upkeep, access to hazardous materials disposal, utility bills and administrative staff. The term itself isn’t very descriptive, but recipients say the costs are necessary for research operations.

A set 15% for the indirect costs would reduce overall funding by $4 billion to $5 billion a year according to the Times. The Times reports, “The White House said the savings would be reinvested in more research, but the rate cuts would open up sizable budget holes in most projects at research institutions.”

Heather Pierce, senior director for science policy at the Association of American Medical Colleges, told the Times, “‘A slash this drastic in total research funding slows research’… And slower scientific progress, she said, would affect anyone who depends on the development of new treatments, medical interventions and diagnostic tools.”