You seem to have left out the critical next sentence (which is the topic of article):
But without personnel to manage the initiatives or to disburse the money, it’s not clear how the work will continue.
But without personnel to manage the initiatives or to disburse the money, it’s not clear how the work will continue.
A simple consolidation of program offices doesn't seem like the worst idea in the world and it (along with other relatively benign scenarios) fit with what's been observed.
Based on past actions I think the appropriate Bayesian prior for pretty much all such public health efforts is now "they've intentionally broken it" until proven otherwise. I'm happy to update my prior if evidence to the contrary comes to light.