9/11 health program cuts to cause 'life and death' delays, fired worker says
NEW YORK — Just before his confirmation as secretary of Health and Human Services, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. pledged to help 9/11 responders and survivors, two U.S. senators from New York said Tuesday. But a day after he got the job, the Trump administration and Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency hit the World Trade Center Health Program.
Democratic Sens. Chuck Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand are now demanding Kennedy reverse "the rash and counterproductive terminations" and ensure ongoing healthcare for "those who answered the call on 9/11 and are now sick with respiratory ailments, cancer and other conditions."
Up to 20% of staff at the WTC Health Program were impacted by cuts of probationary workers and buyouts. HHS oversees the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which houses the WTC program.
The impact is exacerbated, elected officials and fired workers say, by DOGE cuts to scientific research and last year's scrapping of permanent funding for the WTC program by Congress.
"These cuts are going to impact member care directly," said Anthony Gardner, one of the WTC program staff who was notified via email on Saturday, Feb. 15, that he'd lost his job. "For some of these members these delays are going to be life and death."
HHS and CDC did not immediately return requests for comment. USA TODAY has also reached out to the White House requesting comment.
U.S. Rep. Mike Lawler, whose Hudson Valley district is home to many 9/11 responders, on Monday said he was talking with the Trump administration about the cuts.
"I am aware of the serious concerns pertaining to the WTC (Health Program) and have been working through the weekend with the White House to reverse the decision and ensure there are no impacts on providing care to our brave 9/11 heroes," said Lawler, a Republican whose 17th District includes New York City's suburbs in the lower Hudson Valley. "There is nothing more important to me than fighting for our first responders and I won't stop until this is rectified."
The union representing approximately 20,000 active and retired New York City firefighters cite statements by Musk and the Trump administration that if mistakes happen during the DOGE cuts, they'll correct them.
'This is a mistake that needs to be corrected, and corrected quickly,' Andrew Ansbro, president of the Uniformed Firefighters Association of Greater New York, told USA TODAY. 'No one has ever accused the World Trade Center Health Program of being run inefficiently, and no one has ever questioned the need for America to fund the health care program that helps the first responders, rescue workers and civilians.'
Rupa Bhattacharyya, former special master of the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund, said WTC Health provides support for people in all 50 states. WTC program cuts mean "that the heroes of 9/11 will face longer wait times, reduced services, and delays in receiving their compensation" through the VCF, which depends on certifications from WTC Health Program doctors. "It is unconscionable."Battacharyya now serves of the boards of 9/11 Health Watch and Citizens for the Extension of the Zadroga Act.
New York Attorney General Letitia James, a Democrat, said the cuts need to be reversed, calling them reckless and "flat-out cruel."
'Thousands of New Yorkers made heroic sacrifices to save others during this attack and are experiencing lifelong health impacts as a result," she said in a statement. "These heroes deserve the utmost respect and care from their government.'
Related CDC cuts: How will the World Trade Center Health Program be impacted?
Helping 9/11 responders in memory of a lost brother
Gardner found out he had been terminated from his job at the World Trade Center Health Program on the night of Saturday, Feb. 15, via a work email.
The elimination of his co-workers, including some who process claims and review treatments, will lead to delays he said. There are currently 130,000 WTC program members getting monitored, getting treatment, or both.
Gardner has already submitted a rebuttal letter to his firing. But he wants more.
"No matter what happens, I'm really hoping that President Trump takes a closer look, especially to the cuts to these programs, how catastrophic they can be," he said. "I can't believe that's an intended consequence."
He noted that DOGE purports to fight fraud and abuse of federal funds. The WTC program is charged with preventing fraud and abuse by overseeing contracted providers and screening program applicants. "We make sure they meet criteria laid out by the Zadroga Act."
Gardner has been with the WTC program for four years, originally as a contractor. About a year and a half ago, he was brought on as the public affairs specialist.
His experience was beyond the "probationary" level, not only in this job but in practically his entire professional career. Gardner is a former senior vice president of government and community affairs for the 9/11 Memorial & Museum and the September 11th Victims Compensation Fund. He's volunteered with the 9/11 responder community.
"The mission is very important to me," Gardner said.
It's also deeply personal.
Harvey Gardner, Anthony's older brother by 10 years, was working for General Telecom on the 83rd floor in the north tower during the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.
Harvey Gardner and his IT General Telecom co-workers were above the impact zone of the first plane. They were trying to get to a stairwell, Harvey told their brother, Mark, during a phone call during the search.
"Harvey was trying to comfort his co-workers," Anthony Gardner recalled. "The courage that he showed, the compassion that he showed as he was facing the horror of the end of their lives together, has always inspired me."
A commitment through 2090
The World Trade Center Health Program provides health monitoring and treatment for 9/11-related health conditions.
Responders, including police, firefighters, clean-up workers and others who worked in rescue and recovery efforts around the World Trade Center site can qualify for the health program. So can those who lived, worked or went to school in Lower Manhattan during and in the months after the terrorist attacks. The program also supports people exposed at the Pentagon and Pennsylvania.
The health program was established as part of the 2011 James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act.
Dozens of health impacts have been found among those exposed to the toxic swirl around ground zero on and in the months after Sept. 11, 2001.
Other DOGE cuts to research grants also jeopardizes ongoing studies that could slow down additional health problems from being included in WTC program coverage.
'Any research that comes out of World Trade Center Health Care Program can be applied to the long-term care of American firefighters,' Ansbro said.
Getting Zadroga passed in 2011 took heavy lobbying; images of first responders, weakened by 9/11 illness, walking the halls of Congress pushed lawmakers to act.
The WTC program is mandated through 2090. But funding shortages are perpetual.
The new threat has angered because when Trump and Musk blew up a December 2024 year-end omnibus budget plan, a permanent funding mechanism for World Trade Center Health Program was one of the casualties.
The program has faced consequences of careless actions even before that, said Benjamin Chevat, executive director at Citizens for Extension of the James Zadroga Act.
In 2018, Trump's then-Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney tried to terminate the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, Chevat said, "but did not seem to understand the extent that NIOSH was a critical part of the WTC Health Program."
"That proposal was stopped then," Chevat said, "and these cuts need to be reversed now.'
USA TODAY's Eduardo Cuevas contributed to this report.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Oil tanks 6% as Iranian retaliation against US spares energy supply
Oil futures slid 6% on Monday as Iran appeared to spare the energy market while the country launched missiles targeted at a US air base in Qatar in retaliation for US bombings on Iranian nuclear sites. Brent crude (BZ=F), the international benchmark, dropped to $72 per barrel. West Texas Intermediate (CL=F) also fell roughly 6% to trade below $70 per barrel. The declines came after Iranian state media said it launched missile attacks against a US air base in Qatar, matching the number of bombs dropped by the US over the weekend, in a move the Associated Press said signaled "a likely desire to deescalate." Prior to the retaliatory move, Wall Street weighed various scenarios after President Trump announced on Saturday that the US struck three Iranian nuclear facilities, including the threat of Iran closing the Strait of Hormuz, a critical chokepoint for oil flows. On Monday morning, President Trump posted on social media: "To The Department of Energy: DRILL, BABY, DRILL!!! And I mean NOW!!!" "The main reason for this stability is that energy infrastructure has largely been spared from direct attacks, with number of oil tankers transiting through the Strait of Hormuz remaining steady," JPMorgan's Natasha Kaneva and her team wrote on Monday morning. On Sunday, futures spiked after Iran's parliament voted to close the Strait of Hormuz, but the final decision rests with Iran's Supreme National Security Council and Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The oil market is now factoring in "a one-in-five chance of a material disruption in Gulf energy production flows, with potential for crude prices to reach the $120-130 range," Kaneva wrote. "Yet, beyond the short-term spike induced by geopolitics, our base case for oil remains anchored by our supply-demand balance, which shows that the world has enough oil," she added. She also noted that "with fewer reliable partners in the Middle East and limited regional appetite for a broader conflict, Iran faces a constrained set of options and a heightened set of risks as it deliberates its course of action." Other possible retaliatory moves from Iran could include supporting Yemen's Houthi rebels in renewed attacks on commercial shipping, or going after energy infrastructure in neighboring countries. If crude climbs into the $120 to $130 range, analysts predict gasoline and diesel prices could rise by as much as $1.25 per gallon. "Consumers would be looking at a national average gasoline price of around $4.50 per gallon — closer to $6.00 if you're in California," Lipow Oil Associates president Andy Lipow said in a Sunday note. The key issue isn't just the potential for supply disruption, but how long it lasts, Rebecca Babin, senior energy trader at CIBC Private Wealth, told Yahoo Finance on Sunday. "If infrastructure is hit but can be quickly restored, crude may struggle to hold gains," she said. "But if Iran's response causes lasting damage or introduces long-term supply risk, we're likely to see a stronger and more sustained move higher." Last week, JPMorgan analysts noted that since 1967 — aside from the Yom Kippur War in 1973 — none of the 11 major military conflicts involving Israel have had a lasting impact on oil prices. In contrast, events directly involving major regional oil producers, such as the first Gulf War in 1990, the Iraq War in 2003 and the imposition of sanctions on Iran in 2018, have all led to meaningful and sustained moves in oil markets. "During these episodes, we estimate that oil traded at a $7–$14 per barrel premium to its fair value for an extended period," JPMorgan's Kaneva wrote. They added that the most significant and lasting price impacts historically come from "regime changes" in oil-producing countries, whether that be through leadership transitions, coups, revolutions, or major political shifts. "While demand conditions and OPEC's spare capacity shape the broader market response, these events typically drive substantial oil price spikes, averaging a 76% increase from onset to peak," Kaneva wrote. The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries and its allies (OPEC+) had raised output in the months leading up to Israel's strike on Iran on June 13. Ines Ferre is a Senior Business Reporter for Yahoo Finance. Follow her on X at @ines_ferre. Click here for in-depth analysis of the latest stock market news and events moving stock prices Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
21 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Fed officials are starting to break rank and join Trump
Some Federal Reserve officials are joining President Donald Trump in calling for lower interest rates as soon as July. Fed Vice Chair for Supervision Michelle Bowman on Monday downplayed the potential impacts of Trump's tariffs on prices and said the US central bank should swiftly lower rates to preserve the labor market's health. 'It is time to consider adjusting the policy rate,' Bowman said. 'Should inflation pressures remain contained, I would support lowering the policy rate as soon as our next meeting in order to bring it closer to its neutral setting and to sustain a healthy labor market.' Bowman is the second Fed official to join Trump in calling for lower borrowing costs. On Friday, Fed Governor Christopher Waller said tariffs will likely only result in a 'one-off' increase in inflation. Both Bowman and Waller are Trump appointees. For months, Fed officials have said they prefer to wait to see how Trump's major policy shifts affect the US economy first before considering further rate cuts. At its policy meeting earlier this month, the Fed kept its benchmark lending rate unchanged for the fourth consecutive time. But that strategy hasn't sat well with Trump, who has relentlessly lashed out at the central bank and its leader, Fed Chair Jerome Powell, for not lowering rates. Trump has hurled various insults at Powell, describing him as a 'fool' and a 'numbskull.' Now, the Fed's wait-and-see posture is slowly crumbling, even as tensions in the Middle East heat up, which raises the risk of higher global energy prices. And the jury is still out on the ultimate impact of Trump's tariffs. Bowman said it's possible the Israel-Iran conflict — which escalated over the weekend with the US striking at three Iranian nuclear sites — results in higher commodity prices. And there's still the lingering possibility of Trump's trade war also pushing up prices, she said. Still, that may not even result in higher consumer prices because businesses don't have much leverage to hike prices this time around, Bowman said. 'I am certainly attentive to these inflation risks, but I am not yet seeing a major concern, as some retailers seem unwilling to raise prices for essentials due to high price sensitivity among low-income consumers and as supply chains appear to be largely unaffected so far,' Bowman said. Bowman isn't the only Fed official seemingly not worried about the potential economic impact of the Israel-Iran conflict. Powell has said higher energy prices spurred by the conflict will likely be short lived. 'When there's turmoil in the Middle East, you may see a spike in energy prices, but it tends to come down. Those things don't generally tend to have lasting effects on inflation, although of course in the 1970s, they famously did,' Powell said in a news conference following the Fed's June 17-18 policy meeting. 'But, we haven't seen anything like that now. The U.S. economy is far less dependent on foreign oil than it was back in the 1970s,' he added. Economists have said the economic impact of the current conflict largely depends on how out of hand it gets. A forecast from analysts at EY-Parthenon shows that the US economy could contract by a massive 1.9% annualized rate if the Middle East plunges into an all-out regional war. But in a 'contained' scenario, the US economy could contract only slightly. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
USA Today
24 minutes ago
- USA Today
Iran strikes US base after Trump bombing. Are you concerned about war? Tell us.
Last week, we asked you if the US should go to war with Iran. It looks like President Trump decided for us. We want to know how you feel about that. Last Thursday, on June 19, President Donald Trump said he would decide 'within the next two weeks' whether the United States would engage directly in the escalating conflict between Iran and Israel. Two days later, Trump announced the completion of a 'successful' attack on Iranian nuclear sites at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan. On Monday, June 23, Iran responded by striking a U.S. military base in Qatar. And thus begins, perhaps, another U.S. 'forever war' in the Middle East. If you, like me, spent your entire life with America entrenched in Middle East conflicts – where friends and community members have laid down their lives for wars based on lies – then perhaps you, like me, are less than thrilled at this prospect. (Scroll down or click here to share your opinion with us.) And we're not alone. Do you think the US should have bombed Iran? In an Economist/YouGov poll released before the bombing, 60% of respondents said the U.S. military should not get directly involved. A majority – 56% – said that negotiations should continue. A Washington Post poll conducted June 18 found a similar pattern, with the majority of respondents opposing air strikes. And when USA TODAY conducted our own reader survey, we received an overwhelming response saying the United States should not get involved and America should refrain from official intervention. Previously: Should US go to war with Iran or support Israel from afar? Take our poll. | Opinion In the aftermath of the bombing, Americans – and the world – seem as divided as ever on the decision. Trump ally Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina, applauded the move and even encouraged it, telling The Wall Street Journal that he told the president, 'This will reset our relationship with the rest of the world.' Meanwhile MAGA faithful Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Georgia, took to X on Monday to break with Trump, writing, 'It feels like a complete bait and switch.' Less than a week later, we want to know if that feeling has changed. Do you think Trump was right to bomb Iran? Do you think he should have waited for approval from Congress? What do you think Iran – and America – will do next? Are you concerned about the threat of nuclear war? Why did Trump strike Iran? Will it change anything? Questions have swirled in the immediate fallout from the June 21 bombing. In a speech that evening, Trump claimed Iran's three major sites had been 'obliterated.' But less than a day later, the picture was much less certain, with weapons experts, Iranian officials and even Russia contesting the true impact of the attack. These new developments beg the question: Was it worth it? And, with countries pledging to arm Iran with nuclear weapons anyway, did it even change anything? We want to know what you think. Take our poll below, or send us an email with the subject line "Forum US Iran war" to forum@ We'll publish a collection of responses from all sides of the conversation in our next installment of the Opinion Forum. Janessa Hilliard is the director of audience for USA TODAY Opinion and Opinion at Gannett.
