Fired but fighting: Aryn Melton Backus interview

Aryn Melton Backus is an expert in health communications who worked for the CDC on COVID response and at the Office on Smoking and Health. After a total of four years of public service, Backus was fired without cause in February, 2025. Her termination was later rescinded, although her job continued to be targeted by RIFs and she would be fired and reinstated twice more before November. Locked out of her government work, Backus co-founded Fired but Fighting and the National Public Health Coalition in an attempt to continue the progress of public health, even as the administration dismantled the agency dedicated to its protection. This interview was conducted on October 3, 2025.

“I thought it was the coolest job in the world… That's what I was doing when I was laid off earlier this year.”

Morgan Kriesel: I want to talk about your experience in the CDC a little bit. I know you started in 2018. What drew you to working there?

Aryn Melton Backus: I grew up in Georgia in the Atlanta area, and I had a lot of friends whose parents worked at CDC, and I thought it was the coolest job in the world. I mean, it didn't help that one of my really good friends growing up, her dad was kind of the stereotype of what you think of when you think CDC—someone who goes overseas to respond to some scary disease of some sort (that's not what most of us are, most of us just sit in a cubicle and work on our computers, and it is cool but it's not—you know, what you think of). As I got older, the opportunity to help people and do work that helps not just America, but the world be healthy was really interesting to me.

And something about living in Atlanta: CDC is very well respected as employer, regardless of who you're talking to and who they voted for. It's always been really something that people in Atlanta are very proud of—having the CDC in our city. It's just kind of unique.

So when I went to school, I ended up ultimately getting a Masters of Public Health. I went to Emory University which is right next to CDC, so it seemed like the natural next step that I went over to CDC. I had a connection who was looking for [an ORISE] Fellow. So I applied and I got it, and had been there ever since.

I work in health communications and I loved learning about different communication campaigns in school. I was in school when the Tips From Former Smokers campaign launched in the [2010s], and it was very impactful. Especially since I come from a family of smokers. So that drew me to CDC as well, and I actually eventually got to work on that campaign. That's what I was doing when I was laid off earlier this year.

Did any of the smokers in your family feel affected by the campaign and by your work?

Backus: Yeah, most of them have luckily quit since then. They found the stories really impactful. Ultimately, what got my dad to quit was when my older brother had his first kid and he was like, “You can't hold the baby. Quit smoking.” But the stories in the Tips campaign have been really inspirational for my dad. That was a long time before I personally worked on the campaign, but it was good to have that firsthand experience and knowledge that what we were doing helped and was inspirational to people.

What happened to the work that you were doing at the Office on Smoking and Health?

Backus: That's a great question, and we've been trying to figure it out. I mean, I don't know.

They say that some of it's going to transfer to other HHS programs, but I haven't heard of that happening. I think it depends on if our program continues to be funded. That is one question we had with the Senate version of the budget: “Okay, you've provided level funding to CDC, but a bunch of people have been laid off, so how is that work going to continue?”

I would love to know, because the work that OSH (Office on Smoking and Health) does is really important. And, despite the fact that you've eliminated this office, smoking is still the number one preventable cause of disease and death in the United States, and we need to be doing something about it. So I'd love to know what's happening with our work, because I think our work is very important.

We did a lot of outreach to help prevent youth vaping, so that work is not happening right now. I don't know if that's being transferred either, but we had a program and campaign that specifically targeted parents and teachers to help them with youth vaping prevention. FDA does, or did, a lot of that work. I'm not sure if that office got RIF’ed because it was more focused on researching the health effects.

So there's no word on if youth vaping prevention work is happening right now?

Backus: Nope! I know the person who worked on that [CDC campaign] was also fired, so I know she's not doing it. I don't know if anyone else is.

So you started during Trump's first term, and obviously things have reached a whole new level now, but did you experience political influence then?

Backus: Yeah, and I would say we also experienced political influence under President Biden as well. Maybe not to the same degree, but I worked on a COVID response [team] from 2020 to 2022, and we definitely had some levels of political influence with—“the political appointees want you to say this.”

There are always political appointees of the agencies that come in from administration to administration, not just the cabinet secretaries, they might appoint other chiefs of staff or other things like that, but definitely not to this level.

At CDC in particular, we're trying to get numbers on it, but I think there's at least twice as many political appointees under [Trump II] than there have ever been, maybe more. We're trying to track them all down, but it's difficult. Sometimes they announce it, if it's like the COO. The COO is a political appointee who started recently, and there's an announcement that she had been appointed. But also, somebody will be like, “Hey, this person just joined my team. They were appointed and you should keep tabs on them.” In particular, it's happening on the immunization side of things with ACIP.

“…at one point, people were saying that CDC employees deserve to be treated like the Nazis were after the Holocaust…”

You were on the BradCast recently and mentioned RFK’s villainization of CDC workers. We're seeing the consequences of that with the recent shooting. That's interesting, with what you were saying about the culture of Atlanta. What is it like to have such a respected institution insulted like that?

Backus: I mean, obviously it's sad, but it's also just very frustrating, because a lot of the people who see CDC as these villains—a lot of it comes from a misunderstanding of what CDC does, and the people who work there. I think something that we are always yelling within our organization as former CDC employees is, “CDC is not a regulatory agency!” So all these people who are getting mad saying that “CDC forced people to get a vaccine,” or “CDC closed schools,” it's just like, that's not the role of—CDC has very limited regulatory authority. One of the only things CDC was able to regulate during the pandemic was cruise ships and that's because those exist in like, a different space than the state and local government. But at the same time, I was not surprised when the shooting happened, because I had seen the ways that CDC is being vilified online.

My expertise is in social media in particular, and we know that words have consequences, we’ve seen that. And when you spend five years with this man [RFK] telling people how CDC is a cesspool of corruption, that CDC workers are these evil people, and people are parroting that online—I think I saw at one point, people were saying that CDC employees deserve to be treated like the Nazis were after the Holocaust for the COVID-19 pandemic—it wasn't surprising when this happened. But it’s very sad that this internationally respected institution had reached the point where somebody thought that it was so terrible that they fired 500 bullets at the agency trying to kill people.

“…no one asked the people working in these agencies how we can optimize them, and how we can make them better.”

Do you think the way the CDC was corrupted and destroyed so quickly and so easily is exposing a vulnerability in the way that public health research functions in this country? Is there an argument to be made that some of it should not be under government?

Backus: I think it's not that it shouldn't be under government, I think that there are definitely ways that CDC and other HHS agencies could be improved. There are some ways that they could be modernized, things that could be streamlined, and ways that we could make them better and more appropriate for the time that we're in, but no one asked the people working in these agencies how we can optimize them, and how we can make them better. I think if they had, we had the opportunity to build something that was really effective, and really helped the American people. But all the Trump administration has done is broken these agencies. So it's hard to know if this is going to make them better, because they are just pulling Jenga blocks out of the tower, not really caring what that might be propping up.

Yeah, it's crazy, and I think a lot of what they're doing, they're doing it illegally, or they're exposing loopholes that should probably be closed. So in some ways that's good. It's like, okay, you showed us where the loophole is, so now we can hopefully go back and fix it so that no one else can do this.

So how would you optimize the CDC?

Backus: I think the main thing is just getting CDC more modernized, getting us more into the 21st Century. I think also, just like selfishly—I'm a communicator, and communications have not always been centered at CDC. The science is very important, and it should obviously be emphasized—we need to be doing good science. But it doesn't matter what science you're doing if it can't be sent out into the public and it can't be explained in a way that people understand.

I think that's a good [explanation] of how we got to where we are. People don't understand what CDC does. They don't understand science and how it benefits them, through no fault of their own. It's just complicated, and it needs to be explained in a way that people can understand.

I'm assuming that's going to be a big focus of your organization.

Backus: Yeah, I think one of our strengths, and one of the things we think is really important, is we center communications, and it's involved from the start of a project. It's not just something that you tack on at the end.

“…public health is everything. All policies and all different programs affect people's health, even infrastructure affects people's health…”

Your organization of ex-CDC employees, Fired But Fighting, is in the middle of transitioning to the National Public Health Coalition, correct?

Backus: Yeah, we are. Fired But Fighting will live on under that name, but our big umbrella organization is going to be the National Public Health Coalition.

Looking at the Fired But Fighting site, it seems like the mission was originally to mostly provide resources to fired CDC employees, and then bring awareness to the scale and the consequences of these cuts, to call for the cuts not to happen, and for RFK’s resignation. Is that how you would describe it?

Backus: Yes, that's Fired But Fighting. It's pretty similar for National Public Health Coalition, but we're kind of looking at it as more long term. So, more broadly: how can we educate about, and advocate for, this role of public health and tell people what is happening with these cuts to the HHS agencies (and all the stuff that RFK’s doing) that are so detrimental to America's public health?

Can you tell me a little bit more about the different ideas and strategies that you have within your long term goals?

Backus: A big piece is focusing on lawmakers, both state and local level officials, and talking to them about what public health is and why it's so important. Something that we've noticed is a lot of lawmakers don't really have a deep knowledge of what the difference between healthcare and public health is. They might be very knowledgeable about health insurance—Medicare, Medicaid, those sorts of things. But then when it comes to public health, there isn't as much knowledge.

We just got back from a trip where we talked a lot with lawmakers about just CDC funding in general. We're still trying to work out if we're going to be a lobbying group, or if we're just going to try to remain more in this NGO-nonprofit-thing that will limit what we're able to do. I think we're hoping to be able to provide guidance to legislators on possible impacts of legislation as a whole.

Another thing we're hoping to do is provide report cards on senators who are up for reelection, Republican and Democrat, about how well they're doing on public health. Because, obviously, Republicans can be doing better, but a lot of Democrats can also be doing better when it comes to public health. We're working on an evaluation framework. I think it will have to do with programs that they support, what they're doing in their state as well as on the national level. Are they taking a whole new approach to public health funding, or are they just very narrowly focused on things? We're trying to get it shaped up as we head into midterms next year.

The other thing is telling people about what sorts of programs are happening in their state that are federal, or even state level public health programs, and how they're benefiting the people in that state. One of the disadvantages of public health is that when it is working, you don't really notice it. So people might not realize all these things that are happening in the background that are part of our public health system and helping keep us healthy, because it's just not something they engage in or think about in their day to day life. One good example of that is fluoride in drinking water to help prevent tooth decay.

Another good example of that is when you have a baby in the hospital and they do a newborn hearing screening test to identify quickly whether or not the child might have significant hearing loss. And that, it's just a quick test they do while you're in the hospital, you might not even think about it. But it's something that's really important for childhood and language development.

Something else that we're trying to do is just collect information, because at some point, I hope, this will all be over, and we need to know what happened. One, so we can prevent it from ever happening again. And two, so we can hopefully rebuild, and rebuild back better. In order to do that, we need to know what was broken.

What information are you collecting?

Backus: Cuts to programs—what programs have been completely deleted. Another thing we're trying to track is collective years of expertise that have been lost with CDC, and how that will affect the agency moving forward.

Unfortunately, I think some of this will be potentially generational. We've had so many people who retired early that won't be there to train the next generation of public health employees. That's very concerning. We're trying to keep track of people who are potentially moving abroad—the brain drain from the US. And just, all the things that are happening to employees that are making [CDC] a bad place to work right now.

Being able to do this kind of watchdog thing is probably not as possible from working within the government. Are there other potential benefits to public health research and resources being independent?

Backus: Yeah, I think there is. You know, I’d rather be doing my job at CDC, but in some ways it is nice to be this kind of independent group who doesn't have as many constraints on them. And it's helpful to have these watchdogs, but maybe the other thing that we are hoping our organization can do is to encourage politicians to hire public health people onto their teams, hire them on as staffers or consultants or whatever. Because we have a really good perspective of not just how CDC works, but how public health touches everything. I think something you hear a lot in public health is that public health is everything. All policies and all different programs affect people's health, even infrastructure affects people's health, so having somebody who has deep public health expertise, who is on your staff, but also having this independent watchdog group can help educate people about the ways that public health is influencing their life.

We're tearing down all these institutions, removing a lot of public services, and I think the expectation is the corporations are going to pick up the slack. Is fighting against this corporatization of public health part of your goals?

Backus: We haven't thought it through it a ton, but it's definitely a part of it. I think there are some corporations who will donate money to help with whatever public health program. You know, a lot of corporations have philanthropy arms to them. But public health is not profitable as a business, because when public health works, people don't get sick, and healthy people don't make you as much money as a corporation, at least on the health care side of things. So I don't know that we can trust corporations to pick up the slack when it comes to public health. I think we can educate them about like how they can help their communities and how they can give back in ways that benefit the public health, but I don't know if I would count on them to come and fill the gap for CDC. Like, Coca Cola gives a lot of money to do philanthropy, but they're in the business of selling soda. That's their bottom line.

“We need to come down from this ivory tower and talk to people where they're at, really show them that they are benefiting from science, from knowledge, and from research…”

Bringing it back to the villainization of public heath workers. I feel like we're seeing the MAGA movement capitalize on this general sense of anti-intellectualism that, I mean, it's always been a part of American culture, but it feels very big right now. How do you reach people who have decided that information and science are the enemy? If we're not even speaking the same language, how do we connect?

Backus: I think connecting how they benefited from science and intellectualism as a whole is helpful in making it accessible to them. I think a lot of the people who turn their nose up at intellectualism and cry “the liberal elite!” it is because we can be pretty elitist sometimes. We need to come down from this ivory tower and talk to people where they're at, really show them that they are benefiting from science, from knowledge, and from research, even if they don't think they are day-to-day.

I think that's a good point— these attitudes don't come from nowhere. People are angry because they feel that they've been treated unfairly, and in many ways they have. I think people really don't trust colleges and educational institutions right now because they feel like they've been locked out of attending them, which they have. But I do think a part of this is also trust. You know that you're working to help people, but they don't believe that.

Backus: Yeah, and I think that comes down to educating people about and bringing awareness to the ways that they are benefiting from the government, even if they don't realize it. Even if you think that you live a completely off-grid life, free of government services, I'm sure there's some way that you're experiencing the benefits of, if not a public health program, some other sort of government program.

How can we actually listen to each other? I think making clear that, even if you—you know, I'm not a Republican, but it would be helpful if it were like this on the Republican side as well—but being like, “You didn't vote for me, but I'm fighting for you anyways, and I would like to listen to you and really work forward together.”

And, you know, it's always good to bring information to people where they're at because less and less of us are watching the evening news, especially younger people like Millennials and Gen Z. So where are people getting their information? They're getting it from social media and influencers. That's where we're at in [this] moment. That's what we have to do. We have to get with the times, for better or for worse.

But I think we have to be careful that the people we're using as trusted messengers can actually be trusted. I think a lot of them are very good science communicators, and are in it for the right reasons. But, you know, social media influencing is a business, and people are ultimately trying to make money. So how do you balance people being able to make a livelihood for themselves (as they have a right to do) with them being an unbiased and a good messenger for things? I think something that we hear a lot on the right is, “Well, you can't trust this person because they're bought for and paid for by whatever company.” So making sure that you're not giving them more of a reason to say that.

As somebody who works in social media, you know that it amplifies misinformation and rage-bait. So how do you share accurate, non inflammatory information over social media?

Backus: Oh, man, it's so hard. And it's like, social media is so important for connecting us. And it's been an important way to reach people with health information they might not otherwise get. People are able to learn so much through social media. But in some ways, it is difficult. And combating the misinformation on it almost needs to happen off of social media. It's what you said—social media is built around these algorithms, and these echo chambers and click bait, and it's hard to correct when that's what drives the beast, for lack of a better word. But when you're able to sit and have conversations with people who might believe this misinformation, I think you get further.

There's one person, Your Local Epidemiologist. She has a pretty significant following on Instagram, and she has a Substack. She has done some sit-downs with people from the Make America Healthy Again movement. And what she's found is that, when you sit and talk with people, you're able to find common ground and see where they're coming from with their misinformation. And that's a better way to address it than just sitting and posting on my account like, “This is wrong. This is wrong. This is wrong.” And you might get some people when you do that, like maybe the left-center people, or people who are truly just confused. But it's not going to reach everyone. And there are a lot of cases where we just need to talk with people again, and we need to have conversations with people who might not agree with us, even if it's hard.

That's something we're hoping to integrate more into our social media strategy, especially as we transition into the National Public Health Coalition. Fired But Fighting has this more activist, maybe sassier tone, but that's also our audience. That account is more for people who support us, we're not trying to change a ton of minds on that. It's more about encouraging people and raising awareness. But for National Public Health Coalition it'll be more of a “let's point to this longer conversation,” whether it's a podcast, or a YouTube video, or promoting an event where there might be a conversation happening.

There are ways that you can have a social media post that is not long form that is trying to correct disinformation. It might be helpful for some people. But like I said, I think there are groups where you need to have these conversations and talk with each other, not talk at somebody.

Something that can also be a problem with science communication: pure research doesn't usually have a direct justification or an economic rationale. I think that's where some of these anti-intellectual arguments spring from as well. Do you have a response to that kind of argument?

Backus: Yeah, research is a long process. Even as someone who works in the sciences, I don't fully understand why we need all these different steps and why it might take ten different, unrelated experiments to get to whatever step in a drug trial. And I think we see a lot of the cuts to NIH in particular is somebody who did not work in science coming through and being like, “Oh, well, this study looking at whatever on mice is it's not essential. Why are we spending a million dollars on this?” And NIH having to come back and be like, “Well, no. We have to do this because it's an important step in the research process.” You can't just go straight to doing experiments on humans. It's not ethical, it's not safe, so we have to start somewhere. And even if it doesn't seem like it is useful and it has a direct economic impact on you right now, it probably will in the future.

“It's not just about some people who lost their jobs. It's about the work that CDC does and how important we think public health is—that's what we're fighting for.”

As journalists hoping to cover public health information, what should we know?

Backus: I think the big thing is there are still really good, dedicated scientists working at CDC who are trying to do their best under the circumstances. At the same time, it is not a normal CDC.

Things are out of people's control. There's no director right now. We had one for a little bit, and as you know, she was fired almost immediately. So these are, for lack of a better word, unprecedented times at CDC.

But there are still really good, dedicated scientists who are working really hard under, sometimes, impossible circumstances. The people who have been fired, obviously, our morale is low, but the people who are still working, their morale is also very low.

Anything else you want to get off your chest?

Backus: We're hoping to make things better for everyone. It's not just about some people who lost their jobs. It's about the work that CDC does and how important we think public health is—that's what we're fighting for. Obviously, I think people would love to have their jobs back, they would love to be able to work, but [public health is] bigger than that, and that's really what we're fighting for.