The National Plant Germplasm System, described by horticulturalist Rachel Spaeth as a “living library” vital for food security, faces disruption due to widespread federal employee firings orchestrated by the Trump administration, intended to downsize what they deem a bloated bureaucracy. Spaeth, who managed a diversity of stone fruits, was recently terminated alongside numerous other scientists critical to government operations, raising concerns about the impact on research and environmental preservation. Critics highlight the risks of losing specialized expertise, with calls for a reconsideration of the administration’s approach, emphasizing the potential for a detrimental gap in scientific knowledge and capacity.
The National Plant Germplasm System, an extensive federal collection of seeds, roots, branches, and stems, may be unfamiliar to many Americans. However, for Rachel Spaeth, this system represents a “living library” — a crucial safeguard for America against potential “global famine.”
Dr. Spaeth was a horticulturalist at an Agriculture Department research facility close to Davis, California, where she managed 7,000 trees that yield “stone fruits,” such as apricots, cherries, peaches, plums, prunes, and nectarines. Her objective was to maintain the health and genetic diversity of these plants, enabling breeders to cultivate disease-resistant varieties.
She was let go two weeks ago.
The startling initiative led by President Trump and his close associate, Elon Musk, to downsize what the administration describes as a “bloated, corrupt federal bureaucracy” has focused on an increasing roster of often lesser-known scientists, engineers, and other specialists—individuals whose expertise has been fundamental to the modern federal government and has placed the United States in a position of global research leadership.
The aggressive purge is concerning even among some conservatives who fear that the indiscriminate nature of these dismissals will ultimately jeopardize essential government functions.
Concurrently, it raises critical questions regarding the size, structure, and function of the federal bureaucracy. Is there a need to reduce it? And if so, to what extent? Which functions are indispensable, and which are unnecessary? The Trump administration has acknowledged previous mistakes in relation to certain experts, including specialists in bird flu and personnel from the National Nuclear Security Administration, who have since been rehired.
So far, the wave of departures — some mandated, others voluntary — has included endangered species biologists at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; meteorologists at the National Weather Service; the head of the New England office of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration; a chemical engineer focused on renewable energy; an autism expert at the National Institute for Mental Health; and a microbiologist from the Food and Drug Administration, among others.
“Wildlife biologists, research horticulturists, chemical engineers — all are highly educated professionals engaged in significant work,” remarked Rachel Greszler, a senior fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation, which is behind Project 2025, a blueprint created by Trump allies for revamping federal governance. “But the crucial question is whether their work aligns with the federal government’s objectives?”
Modern presidents have been questioning the appropriate role, size, and shape of the federal government since at least Ronald Reagan. After famously asserting that “government is the problem,” Reagan prompted agencies to initiate “reductions in force.” In 1993, President Bill Clinton, a Democrat, issued an executive order to phase out 100,000 federal jobs, albeit gradually over three years.
However, the Trump-Musk initiative represents a completely different undertaking — a significant reckoning regarding the governance of the United States, directly challenging decades of efforts to create a civil service filled with experts across a variety of fields.
This campaign is executed by an administration that perceives much of the government as a stronghold of anti-Trump liberalism. Russell T. Vought, director of the Office of Management and Budget and an architect of Project 2025, stated in a memo issued last month regarding job cuts that “tax dollars are being diverted to finance unproductive and unnecessary programs that serve radical interest groups while disadvantaging diligent American citizens.”
A representative from the federal Office of Personnel Management, McLaurine Pinover, mentioned in an email that the Trump administration has established a “thoughtful, phased process” aimed at “reducing unnecessary waste and bloat while maintaining high-quality services.” In mandating the reductions, Mr. Trump made exceptions for positions related to public safety and immigration enforcement.
Nevertheless, Anthony Mills, director of the Center for Technology, Science and Energy at the libertarian-oriented American Enterprise Institute, noted that the firings do not seem to stem from a thoughtful policy framework guided by a “clearly defined set of principles” regarding the government’s appropriate role.
“It appears to me that the underlying motive is punitive,” he stated. “This is an assertive move aimed at bringing certain institutions ideologically into line.” He cautioned that a loss of federal expertise could hinder Mr. Trump’s governance, emphasizing, “We don’t want to lose our most capable individuals.”
To date, more than 20,000 employees have been dismissed from various federal departments and agencies, according to a database by The New York Times. Countless others have voluntarily departed, either resigning in protest or opting to accept Mr. Musk’s “fork in the road” offer, as more than 700 National Park Service employees did, according to an internal memo sent on Tuesday. It remains unclear how many of those leaving were scientists or experts.
Dr. Spaeth, who holds a doctorate in historical breeding and genetics and was brought in to replace two individuals — one of whom was a molecular geneticist — received praise in an internal newsletter shortly after her termination.
“I had been honored with an award and received recognition just four days after being fired,” she reflected. “So that’s quite amusing.”
Jacob Malcom, an endangered species biologist, reached the position of acting deputy assistant secretary at the Department of Interior, overseeing approximately 200 personnel. However, he resigned in protest, stating that the Trump administration compelled him to sign termination notices for “poor performance,” without any substantiating evidence. One dismissed employee from the Interior Department was involved in efforts to conserve the alligator snapping turtle, the largest freshwater turtle in the United States.
“We have bald eagles present today because there were endangered species biologists decades ago who realized, ‘This is how we save bald eagles,’” Dr. Malcom commented, having focused his doctoral research on ecology and evolution. “If these professionals are dismissed, will we face the extinction of these species?”
The government employs roughly 2.3 million civilian personnel, excluding federal contractors. According to a 2023 analytical survey by the nonpartisan Partnership for Public Service, 53 percent of civil servants hold at least a bachelor’s or an advanced degree, compared to 40 percent of the entire U.S. workforce.
“The federal workforce is an exceptionally educated and skilled group,” stated Max Stier, president of the Partnership. “These are individuals who have developed extraordinary expertise in scientific and technological fields that are extremely difficult to find or replicate elsewhere.”
Lindsey Nielsen, a microbiologist and lieutenant colonel in the Army Reserves, reported that she had just been promoted at the F.D.A. when she received notification of her termination for “poor performance.” Working remotely from a small town in central Nebraska, she was in charge of reviewing the development of laboratory tests for pathogens such as influenza and Covid-19. However, her promotion placed her in “probationary” status, rendering her susceptible to dismissal.
“I have significant concerns that we are heading towards a substantial scientific gap,” she expressed.
Cara Pugliese, a clinical psychologist and program officer at the National Institute of Mental Health, was responsible for overseeing research on treatments for children on the autism spectrum — a priority for Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the new health secretary. After being recruited a year ago from Children’s National Medical Center in Washington, she was terminated just 344 days into her year-long probationary period.
“Navigating life as a woman in science and academia is harsh, yet I was part of a mission-driven community — one that advocates for fundamental human rights and values diversity as an asset, not a liability,” she shared on Facebook, a post that has received over 33,000 shares.
Dr. Joshua Gordon, the former director of the mental health institute, noted that Dr. Pugliese collaborated with scientists to pinpoint research gaps and allocate tax dollars to address unmet needs. This role necessitates sophisticated knowledge. “Individuals like her are not easily replaceable,” he remarked. “Recruiting the right person can take a year or longer.”
While Mr. Vought, of the Office of Management and Budget, claimed that federal funding supports “radical interest groups,” even some critics who are far from radical are voicing dissent.
The Nebraska Cattlemen’s Association cautioned that the elimination of scientists and statisticians at the U.S. Meat Animal Research Center in Nebraska could dismantle research essential for “long-term cost reductions for the beef industry and improved food safety for consumers.”
Representative Don Bacon, a Republican from Nebraska, concurred. “DOGE needs to measure twice and cut once,” he remarked, referring to Mr. Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency, responsible for streamlining the federal workforce.
A representative from the Beet Sugar Development Foundation stated that the removal of horticulturists like Dr. Spaeth poses a risk to “the long-term viability of agriculture and the security of our food systems.”
Some of the displaced experts have been reinstated. Summaira Riaz, who led a team of researchers in breeding grapes, almonds, and other fruits for disease resilience, was brought back after advocacy from her superiors and industry associates.
However, Dr. Spaeth remains unemployed. She is hopeful about securing teaching positions and has already received an offer from a nursery. Yet, she is concerned about her collection — particularly the almonds, given that the Agricultural Research Service has also lost its almond breeder amid emerging disease threats like “red leaf blotch.”
If the collection “goes into complete decline,” Dr. Spaeth warned, the almond industry could suffer. Upon her arrival last year, she observed that the collection was in regression, with overgrown orchards. She enlisted volunteers and students to help clear out weeds and brush.
“We utilize a lot of duct tape and chicken wire,” she explained. “It’s not as if we are living extravagantly here, squandering taxpayer money.”