Two headwinds are facing our nation — tariffs and restricting federal governmental agencies. Previous discussions focused on the impact of tariffs on protecting workers and the impact on occupational health and safety. So when COVID hit, the U.S. wasn’t just behind on vaccines. The nation was behind on protecting worker health and safety — because we had spent years starving the very agencies meant to protect the people on the front lines. Now, we may be falling further behind by eliminating or restricting the resources that made our nation great.

Politicians love to talk about cutting waste. But lately, that mantra has turned into something far more dangerous — dismantling the very institutions built to protect American workers. Behind the rhetoric of “efficiency” and “streamlining,” essential public safety agencies like NIOSH, OSHA, and MSHA are being hollowed out. And it’s not just bad policy. It’s a recipe for disaster. Let’s be blunt: gutting worker protections isn’t about good governance — it’s about power, politics, and profit. And workers are the ones paying the price.

Today, we examine the strategic cost benefit analysis of reducing the funding and staffing of the U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) along with the U.S. Center of Disease Control and Prevention - National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). The intent for restructuring these federal governmental agencies is to reduce any fraud, waste and abuse of human and financial resources. Let’s look at why it may be potentially wise in theory as well as pound foolish in practice.

NIOSH: Slashed and Silenced

NIOSH, the cornerstone of workplace health and safety research, is being drastically downsized as part of a sweeping restructuring within the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). The agency, which has long been instrumental in preventing workplace injuries and illnesses, is set to lose two-thirds of its workforce — 873 employees — amid broader DHHS layoffs affecting 10,000 workers.

Key Consequences of NIOSH’s Dismantling

• Loss of Critical Research for Health and Safety Programs – The shutdown of the National Occupational Research Agenda (NORA) will halt vital studies on workplace hazards across industries like construction, healthcare, and manufacturing.
• Weakened Respiratory Protection Oversight – The closure of the National Personal Protective Technology Laboratory undermines the vetting of N95 masks and other essential protective equipment, potentially leaving workers vulnerable in future health crises.
• Disruption in Workplace Outbreak Investigations – Health Hazard Evaluations, which helped address workplace disease outbreaks — such as the deadly fungal infection in a Michigan paper mill in 2023 — are now on hold.
• Uncertain Future for Worker Protections – The merger of NIOSH into the newly formed Administration for a Healthy America raises concerns about whether worker safety research will remain a priority or be diluted among broader public health initiatives.

This restructuring marks a significant shift in workplace safety oversight, with many experts fearing a loss of scientific expertise, reduced regulatory effectiveness, and an increase in workplace hazards. Without NIOSH’s independent research and advocacy, the responsibility for worker protection may fall solely on OSHA — an agency focused more on enforcement than research.

The full consequences of these cuts remain to be seen, but one thing is clear: worker safety in the U.S. is at a crossroads. The question now is whether policymakers will take steps to fill the void left by NIOSH — or if workplace protections will suffer a lasting setback.

OSHA: Enforcer in Name Only

During the first Trump administration, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) experienced significant reductions in staffing and enforcement activity due to cost-cutting measures. A hiring freeze imposed shortly after President Trump took office led to a decline in the number of OSHA inspectors. By January 2018, the agency had 764 inspectors, down from 814 in January 2017, marking the lowest number in OSHA's 48-year history at that time. 

This decrease in staffing contributed to a decline in enforcement activity. In Fiscal Year (FY) 2016, OSHA reported 42,900 enforcement units, but this number dropped to 41,829 in FY 2017. The first five months of FY 2018 saw an accelerated decline, with enforcement units decreasing by 1,163 compared to the same period in FY 2017. 

The reduction in enforcement was particularly evident in complex inspections, such as those involving musculoskeletal disorders, heat stress, and chemical exposures. For instance, inspections related to musculoskeletal disorders decreased by one-third, and those concerning heat stress were reduced by half. 

Critics argued that these staffing and enforcement reductions compromised worker safety, especially in high-risk industries. The decline in OSHA's capacity to conduct thorough inspections raised concerns about the agency's ability to fulfill its mandate of ensuring safe and healthful working conditions. While these measures were part of broader efforts to reduce the size of the federal government, they sparked debate over the balance between cost-cutting and maintaining essential regulatory oversight to protect workers.

In October 2024, OSHA completed another significant restructuring of its regional operations to enhance efficiency and better serve workers and employers across the United States. A key component of this restructuring was the creation of a new regional office in Birmingham, Alabama. This Birmingham Region oversees OSHA operations in Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Tennessee, and the Florida Panhandle. The establishment of this region aims to address the area's growing workforce and the presence of high-hazard industries such as food processing, construction, heavy manufacturing, and chemical processing.

Additionally, OSHA merged its former Regions 9 and 10 to form the new San Francisco Region, consolidating management of operations in the western United States. This change was intended to improve the agency's ability to deploy resources and serve workers more effectively in that area. But does that really work?

MSHA: Mining Safety and Health on the Chopping Block

In early 2025, the U.S. Department of Labor's Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) faced significant restructuring plans initiated by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), an agency established under the Trump administration and led by Elon Musk. DOGE proposed terminating leases for 34 MSHA offices across 19 states, including key mining regions such as Kentucky, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. This move aimed to achieve cost savings of approximately $18 million.

The targeted closures raised substantial concerns among miners, safety advocates, and lawmakers. Critics argued that reducing MSHA's physical presence would compromise the agency's ability to conduct regular and thorough inspections, potentially endangering miner safety. The necessity for inspectors to travel greater distances could lead to decreased oversight effectiveness, reminiscent of past tragedies like the 2010 Upper Big Branch mine explosion, which underscored the critical importance of stringent safety regulations.

Furthermore, MSHA had been experiencing staffing challenges prior to these proposed closures. Over the past decade, the agency saw a 27% reduction in overall personnel and a 50% decrease in coal mine enforcement staff. These workforce reductions, coupled with the proposed office closures, intensified apprehensions about MSHA's capacity to fulfill its mandate of ensuring miner safety and health.

In response to these developments, the United Mine Workers of America (UMWA) expressed deep concern, emphasizing the potential risks to worker safety. UMWA President Cecil E. Roberts highlighted the uncertainty surrounding the closures, questioning whether the offices would indeed close or if staff would be relocated. He underscored the potential dangers of reducing MSHA's field presence, stating that such actions could be a "recipe for disaster."

As of April 2025, the full implementation and impact of these restructuring plans remained uncertain. Stakeholders continued to monitor the situation closely, advocating for measures that prioritize miner safety and uphold the rigorous standards established to protect workers in the mining industry.

Risk of Dismantling These Agencies

Eliminating waste, abuse and fraud: Some argue that federal government agencies become bloated or inefficient over time. This one of those ideas that almost everyone agrees on in principle — but the devil is in the details. Here’s a breakdown of the dynamics:

Why It Sounds Great (in theory):

• Taxpayer Accountability: People want their money used efficiently. When funds are misallocated or programs are bloated, it creates distrust.
• Streamlining Services: Removing redundancies or outdated programs can make agencies more responsive and effective.
• Targeting Corruption: Whether it’s sweetheart contracts, political favoritism, or plain fraud, waste or abuse; rooting this out can restore faith in public institutions.

But Here’s Where It Gets Tricky:

• What Counts as “Waste”?: One person’s “waste” is another’s essential service. Example: Funding for climate research might seem wasteful to some, but to others, it’s vital for long-term planning and policy.
• Risk of Political Weaponization: Efforts to eliminate "corruption" can sometimes become cover for ideological purges or defunding programs if one side disagrees.
• Slippery Slope to Dysfunction: Overzealous cuts can leave governmental agencies unable to do their jobs effectively. (FEMA pre-Katrina, NIOSH firefighter registry and NIOSH respirator approvals, OSHA lagging behind on complaint inspections and response to fatalities, or the FAA during certain budget crises.)

What Actually Works (When Done Right):

• Inspector General Offices: These internal watchdogs are often effective in auditing, investigating, and recommending reforms.
• Whistleblower Protections: Encouraging internal reporting by governmental agencies can surface corruption early.
• Government Accountability Office (GAO): These reports help Congress and the public understand what’s working (and what’s not). It helps determine the level of funding to support the agency mission to protect people of the nation.
• Modernizing Technology: Legacy systems are a huge money drain — upgrading infrastructure can cut costs long-term.

Shrinking Bureaucracy

• Reducing Red Rape: Cut down on excessive rules, forms, delays, and approvals.
• Trimming Personnel: Downsize staff to make operations more efficient.
• Flattening Hierarchies: Fewer levels of management to speed up decision-making.
• Digitizing Processes: Automating manual, paper-heavy systems.

Case for Shrinking Bureaucracy:

• Efficiency: Less paperwork, faster responses, and fewer middlemen = better service and less frustration.
• Cost Savings: Reducing overlap and waste can save millions (if not billions) over time.
• More Innovation: Streamlined structures can adapt faster to change and embrace new tech or strategies.
• Reduced Corruption/Patronage: Simpler systems mean fewer hidden levers for favoritism, nepotism, or opaque decisions.

The Case Against Going Too Far:

• Oversimplification: Some complexity is necessary—regulations exist for safety, fairness, and oversight.
• Loss of Institutional Knowledge: Layoffs or forced retirements can result in losing people who really know how things work.
• Overburdening the Remaining Staff: If cuts aren’t strategic, there is a risk burning out employees or degrading service quality.
• Unintended Consequences: Cutting corners can lead to scandals, disasters, or major policy gaps (e.g., when regulators can’t keep up with new tech or crises).

Restoring Accountability or Austerity?

Restoring accountability means reforming structures might return more power to local or individual levels. It also means

• Making agencies answerable to the public (not just to internal processes or political appointees).
• Transparent decision-making, budgeting, and reporting.
• Consequences for failure, corruption, or abuse of power.
• Public access to oversight mechanisms — think audits, reviews, or even citizen boards.

Why This Can Be a Very Good Thing

• Closer to the people = more responsive: Local and state officials often understand their community better than a federal agency thousands of miles away.
• More innovation: Local and state governments can try new things faster without waiting for the federal government. to act.
• Greater trust: People are more likely to trust what they can see, influence, and understand.
• Checks and balances: Decentralized power reduces the risk of a single agency becoming unaccountable or authoritarian.

But Here’s the Flip Side

• Uneven results: Not all federal agencies have the same capacity or resources—some might struggle or be mismanaged.
• Loss of national standards: Things like clean air, worker health and safety, or civil rights need consistent enforcement — fragmentation can weaken that.
• Potential for local corruption: Power closer to the people isn’t automatically more ethical—small-town or state politics can be just as messy as federal ones.

But Pound Foolish (in practice):

• Loss of expertise: Agencies often house specialized knowledge critical for public health, safety, infrastructure, etc.
• Regulatory gaps: Without oversight, industries could cause environmental damage, financial abuse, or unsafe working conditions (like OSHA’s role).
• Chaos over clarity: Abrupt changes without clear replacements can lead to confusion and harm.

Cutting Too Deep, Too Fast

Defunding oversight roles in the name of “efficiency” can actually lead to more fraud, abuse, waste and mismanagement long-term. The result can be devastating because costs balloon after the cuts — through lawsuits, disasters, or having to rebuild broken systems.

Replacing Bureaucracy with… More Bureaucracy

Ironically, efforts to simplify can create new layers of complexity. For example, “streamlined” reforms sometimes require new or convoluted reporting systems, training programs, or extra approvals, defeating the purpose. The result is the system becomes more tangled, not less. So nothing is really solved in the process of replacing bureaucracy.

Ignoring Expertise 

Veteran civil servants and specialists often hold specialized expertise and the institutional memory that reforms need to succeed. A wave of early retirements or layoffs wipes out people who know how to navigate crises. The end result is that efficiency plummets, rookie mistakes increase, and costly delays pile up.

Accountability Theater

Trying to look “tough on waste, fraud and abuse” without addressing root causes can result in disaster. Setting arbitrary performance metrics that encourage box-checking instead of actual outcomes. The result is a superficial success that leads to deep failure. 

Let’s look at the example of providing online worker training by “teaching to the test” instead of real learning using a qualified in-person instructor. How can learning be measured if we only provide the answers rather than substantive learning of the material. Putting a check in the box showing that workers did better on the post-test evaluation rather than the pre-test does not demonstrate how well the material was retained and how these workers will perform at work. It only shows them how to take a test.

Chaos Without a Backup Plan

Tearing down an agency’s function before you have something ready to replace it is not a good plan. Gutting occupational health and safety departments, then scrambling during a pandemic does not provide a strategic workplan nor the resources to address the problem. The final result may be a scrambled response, avoidable deaths, and billions lost in economic fallout.

To date, NIOSH, MSHA and OSHA continues to operate under this restructured framework. However, there have been legislative proposals, such as the "Nullify Occupational Safety and Health Administration Act" introduced by Representative Andy Biggs, aiming to abolish OSHA and transfer regulatory power to the states. This proposal reflects ongoing debates about the role of federal oversight in workplace safety.

The need to restructure NIOSH, MSHA and OSHA may come at a huge financial and moral cost to the taxpayers and workers throughout the country. In the end, these choices not be wise but pound foolish to dismantle, gut, or radically reform any government agency without truly knowing all of the facts before make change.

Accountability or Austerity?

What we’re doing now isn’t reform. It’s self-inflicted sabotage. The way forward is to provide real accountability by:

• Strengthening inspector general offices.
• Protecting whistleblowers.
• Funding agencies so they can fix what’s broken—not destroy what works.
• Modernizing outdated systems without trashing core missions.

Final Warning Regarding Government Efficiency

In short, you don’t yank out the fire alarm because you don’t like its signature tone. You don’t gut workplace health and safety institutions in the name of “efficiency” when the real goal is political control. If the idea of reform is setting the house on fire and calling it open concept, then be ready to own the smoke, the collapse, and the casualties. Because this isn't cost-cutting to reduce waste, fraud or abuse. This is sabotage.

Every inspector laid off, every regulation gutted, every program erased — that’s one more life left unprotected. One more mine, workplace or railroad disaster is waiting to happen. So don’t leave workers defenseless — unless you’re ready to own every injury, every illness, and every preventable death that follows. This isn’t just pound foolish. It’s reckless.