Concerns Grow Over Deletion of Federal Health Data During Trump Administration

In recent months, renewed attention has surfaced over the deletion of significant federal datasets under the Trump administration, particularly within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Public records, watchdog reports, and former federal staffers have pointed to a pattern of systematic takedowns of databases, regulatory information, and scientific research, raising concerns from both transparency advocates and members of the scientific community.

The administration had publicly stated that many of the decisions to scale back data repositories were rooted in a broader strategy of reducing government spending and eliminating what it deemed redundant or outdated programs. However, critics argue that the permanent loss of years—sometimes decades—of public data may come with long-term consequences that extend well beyond budget lines.

Some of the data reportedly removed include public health dashboards, environmental hazard mapping tools, and records tracking the effects of pollution on communities. Many of these tools were accessed by scientists, healthcare professionals, and policymakers to inform decisions on everything from disease outbreaks to disaster preparedness. Although some removals were accompanied by new systems or revised platforms, others vanished without replacement.

DoorSpace CEO Sarah M. Worthy, who leads a company focused on supporting and retaining the healthcare workforce through technology, offered a pointed critique of the data deletion:

“While this administration is citing a need for budget cuts as the motivation behind the shuttering of our nation’s regulatory healthcare system, I can think of no greater waste than the deletion of billions of dollars worth of research and data that taxpayers have funded through the past several decades. It’s one thing to choose to spend money on different priorities going forward and quite another to delete all the outcomes we’ve already paid for and are still benefiting from.

This must be what it felt like for ancient Egyptians to watch the great Library of Alexandria burn to the ground, and those lost scrolls amounted to a mere fraction of the knowledge US scientists have accumulated through taxpayer-funded research.”

Supporters of the administration’s actions argue that archiving old data and reducing data hosting requirements is a legitimate part of streamlining government operations. Some emphasize that outdated databases can present a risk of misinformation if left unmaintained and that agencies have a right to modernize, revise, or retire certain resources.

Others, however, point out that budget justifications don’t fully explain why entire datasets have been deleted without being archived or made available for public request. In 2020, for example, the Trump administration’s Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) removed a long-standing public database tracking hospital infection rates, prompting concern from epidemiologists and public health experts. While HHS stated at the time that the reporting methods were being updated, some researchers reported that access to historical data was never fully restored.

Transparency groups such as the Sunlight Foundation and Data.gov advocates have called for legislation that would require all federally funded data to be archived and publicly accessible unless national security or privacy concerns dictate otherwise. They note that even if a dataset is outdated, its historical value remains critical for tracking long-term trends and outcomes.

The debate has reignited discussions around the role of public data in governance. While few question the importance of fiscal responsibility, the central concern remains whether the cost-cutting measures have resulted in an irreversible loss of institutional memory.

For professionals in healthcare, environmental science, and academic research, the issue is not just about transparency—it’s about the tools they rely on to do their jobs. Publicly funded data has long been considered part of the public trust, offering not just accountability, but also a foundation for innovation and informed decision-making.

As new administrations consider how to rebuild or recover deleted datasets, some experts are recommending the development of redundant archiving systems and cross-agency standards for data preservation. They warn that the integrity of public research and planning infrastructure may depend on it.

Whether the data deletions will have measurable long-term effects remains to be seen. But one thing is clear: the conversation about who controls public data—and what happens when it disappears—is far from over.