

The FDA slashed 3,000 workers last year. Now it's scrambling to hire 2,200 back, but the math still doesn't add up. Here's what it means for drug approvals, biotech timelines, and whether the regulatory engine can survive the whiplash.
Imagine firing your entire kitchen staff mid-dinner rush, then frantically posting "Help Wanted" signs while orders pile up. That's roughly what the FDA just did, and the agency is finally trying to dig itself out.
At the BIO International Convention in San Diego last week, FDA Acting Chief of Staff Lowell Zeta announced the agency has been authorized to hire 2,200 new employees across its centers. About 600 people are already in the onboarding pipeline, with a couple hundred having completed the process and started work. Acting CDER Director Michael Davis said hiring has "picked up significantly" in the last month and is now within historical norms.
Sounds like good news. But context matters. A lot.
The FDA cut roughly 3,500 employees over the past year. That's roughly 20% of its workforce, wiped out in a wave of reductions-in-force tied to broader government restructuring. The damage wasn't spread evenly, either.
CDER (the center that reviews most drugs) lost 740 staffers in a single quarter in fiscal year 2025 and gained just 6. CBER (which handles biologics and vaccines) lost 194 and gained 4. Former FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb noted that the oncology review team alone shrank from about 100 people to under 60. That's the group responsible for evaluating cancer drugs, one of the most active areas in all of biotech.
So the math is straightforward: 2,200 new hires against 3,500 losses. Even if every position gets filled, the agency ends up net negative by roughly 1,300 people.
Here's where it gets interesting. Despite all the turmoil, FDA's drug review engine didn't collapse in 2025. An analysis of 53 novel drugs approved last year found that reviewers met nearly all their PDUFA deadlines (the statutory dates by which the agency promises to act on applications). Only two applications exceeded a 12-month review window.

Congress just opened a national security investigation into Merck and AbbVie's clinical trials at Chinese military hospitals. No one's alleging crimes yet, but the implications for how pharma picks trial sites could be massive.


Join thousands of biotech professionals who start their day with our free, daily briefing.
But "didn't collapse" isn't exactly a ringing endorsement. The strain shows up most clearly in the less visible parts of the system. Regulatory consultants report longer wait times for early-stage meetings, thinner guidance from reviewers, and growing backlogs for biologics and vaccines. Small biotechs, the ones that depend most on FDA feedback to design their trials correctly, are feeling it the hardest.
Not all FDA divisions are struggling equally. The biggest pressure points:
Biologics and vaccines. CBER took a disproportionate hit, and these products tend to require the most specialized reviewers. Companies report extended review cycles and delays in fast-track program access.
Oncology. With its review staff severely depleted, this division faces a brutal mismatch between workload and capacity. Cancer drug applications haven't slowed down; the people reviewing them just disappeared.
Early-stage interactions. Pre-IND meetings (where companies get FDA input before even starting clinical trials) are reportedly delayed and narrower in scope. This is the regulatory equivalent of trying to build a house without an architect's review of the blueprints.
Meanwhile, generic drug reviews are actually trending in the right direction: mean approval times dropped from about 36 months to 33 months in the first half of fiscal 2026. But there are still 1,277 generic applications sitting in FDA's queue, so "improving" is relative.
The honest answer: partially, and not quickly.
Regulatory review isn't like staffing a warehouse. You can't just hire 2,200 people and expect full productivity on day one. New reviewers need months of training and years to develop the institutional judgment that makes complex drug evaluations possible. The senior reviewers who left during the cuts took decades of expertise with them.
Wall Street is cautiously optimistic but hedging its bets. Bernstein analysts recommend focusing on mature, commercial-stage biotech companies rather than smaller firms with make-or-break PDUFA dates in 2026 or 2027. The logic: if you're already selling drugs, a slower FDA is an inconvenience. If your entire valuation depends on a single approval decision, it's existential.
Regulatory consultants are advising companies to build three to six extra months of buffer into their development timelines and stop treating PDUFA dates as guarantees. More than 200 biotech CEOs signed a letter urging Congress to intervene, citing delayed approvals and eroding investor confidence.
The FDA's funding structure makes all of this more precarious than it looks. About half of the agency's approximately $7.2 billion budget now comes from user fees; companies literally pay the FDA to review their drugs. Those user fee programs have "trigger" rules requiring Congress to maintain a minimum level of separate government funding. If Congressional budget cuts go deep enough to breach those triggers, the FDA would be forced to reduce or halt user fee collection, creating a funding death spiral.
For fiscal year 2024, the PDUFA trigger threshold was about $279 million, and actual funding came in at $395 million, safely above the line. But the President's budget proposal included an 11.4% cut to FDA's discretionary funding. Every dollar cut from that baseline moves the agency closer to a cliff that nobody in biotech wants to think about.
The 2,200-person hiring surge is a necessary correction. But it's a bandage on a wound that required stitches. The FDA's drug review machine is still running, and the new hires will help keep it from breaking down entirely. Whether they'll restore it to full speed is a question that won't be answered for at least another year.
For biotech companies and their investors, the takeaway is uncomfortable but clear: plan for uncertainty, budget for delays, and don't assume the cavalry has arrived just because the "Help Wanted" sign came down.
The FDA selected seven companies for its first-ever PreCheck pilot, a program that lets the agency review drug factories while they're still being built. It could shave over a year off approval timelines and reshape how biotech thinks about manufacturing.