Officials laid off 43 staff members last week — the most significant round of personnel cuts since the COVID-19 pandemic — directly attributing the decision to the University’s growing budget deficit. The announcement, delivered exclusively to faculty and staff via email, ended months of speculation about whether officials would turn to layoffs to address ongoing financial strain. But beyond confirming the layoffs, the message offered little else. In the days that followed, officials remained tight-lipped, refusing to explain how they selected employees for the layoffs or which departments and schools were affected.
Officials’ decision not to share this information is especially concerning given that they had for months framed budget decisions as efforts to avoid layoffs and indicated that any personnel cuts would be gradual and managed at the individual “unit” level. But last week’s announcement departed from that narrative, as the layoffs came en masse and occurred abruptly at the end of fiscal year 2026’s first quarter. The lack of transparency about which areas were affected, how the decisions were made and why the layoffs were necessary now leaves key stakeholders who are directly impacted and financially invested in the University without the information they deserve. Their secrecy also suggests that University leadership does not see open communication as an obligation, even to students and their families who were excluded from the original message.
Officials have justified their decision not to disclose which specific schools, departments and offices were affected by citing a need to protect the individuals impacted. But those laid off are not the only ones who will feel the consequences of their decision. Faculty and staff within those units will likely shoulder additional workloads, and students and families — who pay tens of thousands of dollars in tuition each year — may experience a decline in the quality of academic and student services. So far, communication from officials around these decisions has come across more as a courtesy than a responsibility. But as the ones making and enforcing these decisions, they owe the community more than after-the-fact notifications. The community deserves real-time, consistent communication and clear explanations about the reasoning and process behind major choices, not just occasional updates. Failing to provide that implies that the University does not believe it is accountable to those who study and work here and is a stance that deepens mistrust.
Additionally, officials’ lack of transparency last week about where the cuts occurred becomes even more problematic when contrasted with the messaging they offered in the months prior. Chief Financial Officer Bruno Fernandes told the Staff Council in April that officials were not discussing layoffs, adding that avoiding such cuts remained a top priority. And in July, officials stated in interviews and to the Staff Council that they did not anticipate mass layoffs like those seen during the pandemic, nor did they have plans for “holistic layoffs across the University.” Chief of Staff Scott Mory also described potential layoffs as a “fluid situation” that would not happen all at once and would depend on how individual offices and divisions adjusted their budgets.
This rhetoric mirrors officials’ earlier messaging. In May, they justified their 3 percent cut to GW’s FY2026 budget as a necessary step to avoid University-wide layoffs. That’s why these sweeping University-wide layoffs came as a surprise for our editorial board — and, we assume, for much of the community. Not only had months of communication suggested layoffs were unlikely, but we also understood that any cuts would be handled within individual departments and only considered on a broader scale if the deficit significantly worsened. That understanding, based on the University’s own statements, now feels misleading, which makes it even more urgent that officials explain what changed. When prior messaging turns out to be incomplete or inaccurate, transparent communication isn’t just preferred. It’s the minimum required to begin rebuilding trust.
As of July, the University was grappling with a $24 million budget deficit — a fraction of the $180 million shortfall during FY2020 that triggered 339 staff layoffs to save $32 million. Since the deficit climbed by $10 million between May and July, it’s possible the gap has widened further, but officials have not released an updated figure. To maintain transparency with the community, officials must clarify why the layoffs were necessary at this time and disclose how much the University expects to save from them. We can’t be left to guess whether a growing deficit forced this decision. If that’s the case, they need to say so. Those 43 individuals who had their lives upended on Tuesday deserve to know why their jobs were eliminated.
For years, officials indicated that GW was in a strong financial position — all while only vaguely alluding to an underlying deficit. Even when news emerged about GW’s revenue falling short of its 2023 goals or its net worth declining in 2022, officials did not frame these developments as cause for immediate concern. Fernandes described the revenue shortfall as “some tightness,” while Joe Cordes, co-chair of the Faculty Senate’s Fiscal Planning and Budgeting Committee, reassured the community by stating that “GW basically is a financially sound institution” when discussing the net worth.
It wasn’t until April that the University formally disclosed a yearslong “significant and unsustainable gap” between revenue and expenses. After that, the tone of official communication shifted dramatically, with leaders now speaking openly about “difficult and immediate budget challenges.” A shift in rhetoric like that might make sense if the deficit were the result of sudden external pressures, like former President Trump’s policies targeting higher education. But that’s not the case. This shortfall appears to stem from long-standing structural issues, making it all the more troubling that the community wasn’t informed earlier, when there may have been more time to prepare or respond.
Officials can’t expect trust from a community they haven’t fully informed. When decisions of this magnitude that affect livelihoods, workloads and the student experience are made behind closed doors, limited communication is unacceptable. If officials believe these cuts were necessary, they should be willing to explain why clearly and directly to everyone affected. That includes outlining what changed, how decisions were made and what impact the cuts are expected to have. Moving forward, officials must treat transparency not as a choice, but as a responsibility.
The editorial board consists of Hatchet staff members and operates separately from the newsroom. This week’s staff editorial was written by Opinions Editor Andrea Mendoza-Melchor, based on discussions with Contributing Opinions Editor Ava Hurwitz, Contributing Culture Editor Carly Cavanaugh and Contributing Sports Editor Grant Pacernick.
