The lede laid out the problem, but the news writer missed it.
The agencies under Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F Kennedy are getting squeezed between old-guard staff who object to Trump administration priorities on one side, and prominent conservatives and business interests on the other.
Old-guard staff are well worth listening to and taking their input, especially their objections, seriously. But, this:
The dynamic is creating a minefield between Make America Healthy Again and deregulation for current leaders and new appointees.
No, it does not create any sort of minefield. The situation really is quite straightforward and simple, requiring only some managerial will.
Staff inputs, especially those objections, legitimately, apply only during the investigation, ideation, and discussion/debate phases. Once the decision has been made, though, here by Kennedy or his designated subordinate—CDC Director or Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research Director, for instance—it then becomes the duty of old-guard staff, every single one of them, to carry out that decision with zeal and enthusiasm. Their objections or disagreements no longer matter and should no longer exist.
If an old-guard staffer does not believe s/he can carry out that decision in good conscience, then his duty is to resign, not to refuse to execute or to passively resist.
If an old-guard staffer—or a newer hire—does resist the decision or obstruct it passively, then the relevant manager must fire the staffer. NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya has an opportunity here. In a kerfuffle over whether NIH would create a list of DEI-related words to be banned from grant recommendations, he issued a directive barring any such lists.
[B]ut some program officers “took it upon themselves” to create ad hoc, unofficial lists.
Those program officers should be identified and fired for cause.