Trump is Quickly Filling Science Appointments at HHS with Anti-Vaxxers
Their views on vaccines are dangerous to public health
President-elect Trump is nominating appointments for scientific leadership positions faster than he did in his first term, and he seems to be focused on one Department in particular: Health and Human Services (HHS). It is not clear as to why he is so laser-focused on HHS. Perhaps it’s payback for the pushback he got from HHS career staff during the COVID-19 pandemic. Or maybe he wants to get ahead of the next epidemic or is hearing about outbreaks of H5N1 bird flu and mpox. The public health risk for those two viruses is low. Still, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is carefully monitoring people and animals exposed to or infected by them.
But even if Trump is nominating HHS leaders fast because of the potential for new or wider viral outbreaks – we should be concerned about how these nominees will respond. While most of Trump’s HHS nominees have some experience in medical science or health-related policy – most are skeptical of vaccine benefits. More on this below, but look at last week’s front-page story in the New York Times: Kennedy’s Lawyer Has Asked the F.D.A. to Revoke Approval of the Polio Vaccine. Polio vaccines!!!
Vaccines are a scientifically proven and safe tool to combat the spread of deadly viruses. Doctors overwhelmingly support vaccines as one of the most effective and safest public health tools available. Healthcare organizations such as the American Medical Association (AMA), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and World Health Organization (WHO) consistently reinforce the importance of vaccination for public health. Take vaccines out of our public health toolbelt, and the outcome of a viral outbreak could lead to widespread public harm or death.
An overview of Trump’s HHS nominees
In his first term, Trump took much longer to appoint scientific leaders at federal agencies than prior administrations (see the below figure from a report I authored with the Union of Concerned Scientists).
For example, during the first Trump administration, the HHS Secretary position was not filled until January 2018 (by Alex Azar) – one full year after Trump’s inauguration. It seems that Trump and his team are moving faster this time around, potentially signaling they’ll be better prepared.
Even though Trump 2.0 may fill scientific leadership positions faster, there is no guarantee that these individuals will have the relevant experience to be successful and fulfill their missions to safeguard the public. Indeed, this looks like the case at HHS. The nominees’ views about vaccines are very concerning, given the critical role of the HHS and its agencies in protecting public health.
SciLight has been tracking scientific appointments, so I encourage you to review the information. Below are the nominees so far and their stances on vaccine benefits.
Nominee for Secretary of HHS – Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. (RFK Jr.) is a vaccine skeptic. He founded the group, “Children’s Health Defense,” which has filed nearly 30 legal suits challenging vaccine and public health mandates. He has publicly stated that vaccines cause autism, misinformation that has been debunked. This disinformation was shared by Trump in a recent TIME magazine interview. Recently, Trump said he’d be having a discussion with RJK Jr. on potentially ending childhood vaccination programs.
Nominee for Deputy Secretary of HHS – Jim O’Neill
Jim O’Neill is a Silicon Valley investor and close associate of billionaire Peter Thiel. O’Neill is skeptical of the federal drug regulation process, but his views on vaccine benefits are unclear. On November 14th of this year, he wrote on X, “These people think curing cancer is unethical, but vaccine mandates are good,” following up with RJK Jr.’s slogan, “Let’s make America healthy again.” So, it seems like he’ll probably fall in line with RJK Jr.’s views.
Nominee for Director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) – Jay Bhattacharya
Jay Bhattacharya is a physician and Stanford professor of medicine, economics, and health research policy. He also was a critic of COVID-19 lockdowns and vaccine mandates. Bhattacharya was one of the authors of the Great Barrington Declaration – a document that promoted healthy individuals to continue their everyday lives while building immunity to COVID-19 (i.e., herd immunity). Former NIH Director Francis Collins called the Great Barrington Declaration dangerous and “not mainstream science.”
Nominee for Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) – Martin A. Makary
Martin A. Makary is a surgeon without relevant policy or drug-approval experience. Makary also opposed a COVID-19 vaccine mandate. Makary was not opposed to the COVID-19 vaccine but questioned young children taking it. He also questioned the need for masking during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Nominee for Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) – Dave Weldon
Dave Weldon is a physician and former Republican congressman. Dr. Weldon, like RFK Jr., has suggested that vaccines are linked to autism in children (which once again has been thoroughly debunked). He also has previously argued that abstinence is the best way to prevent sexually transmitted infections, and he has erroneously linked abortion and breast cancer. In a recent interview with the New York Times, he said that he believes in vaccination but declined to say whether he still believed autism is linked to vaccines.
Nominee for Administrator of Medicare and Medicaid – Mehmet Oz
Mehmet Oz, better known by his TV personality Dr. Oz, is a former heart surgeon who became popular due to his appearances on “The Oprah Winfrey Show.” Dr. Oz has a checkered past when it comes to vaccines. He has encouraged people to get some vaccines while simultaneously questioning the safety of others. For example, he shared a video of himself receiving the COVID-19 vaccine but also questioned the safety of COVID-19 boosters for children.
Nominee for Surgeon General – Janette Nesheiwat
Dr. Janette Nesheiwat is a Fox News medical contributor and serves as a medical director at CityMD. She has experience managing a medical company but does not appear to have government experience. However, Dr. Nesheiwat stands in contrast to other HHS nominees thus far, as she seems to believe that vaccines are beneficial. She previously described the COVID-19 vaccine as a “gift from God” on Fox News. She also has praised the effectiveness of the MMR (measles, mumps, and rubella) vaccine on Fox News. She also supported masking schoolchildren and has been outspoken against abortion restrictions. Her nomination has thus riled up Trump supporters.
What does an HHS with anti-vaxxer leadership mean for public health?
Experts on infectious disease and public health are rightfully concerned about HHS nominees to date. They worry that renewed deadly epidemics will be more of a risk, and they list measles, whooping cough, meningitis, and polio as examples.
Of course, vaccinations are not the only area of concern with the HHS nominees. RJK Jr. has also spread disinformation about the toxicity of fluoride in water. Dr. Oz previously held up hydroxychloroquine as an effective medicine to combat COVID-19, but the drug has not been proven effective through research. Dr. Bhattacharya’s views on herd immunity are concerning for public health.
The set of nominees also presents a new challenge –fringe science. Most people would agree that when political appointees sideline science in making policy decisions, we have a problem, particularly if those appointees lack the relevant scientific backgrounds. The rub is that while many of the current HHS nominees have some background in medical research/science or health-related policy, their views may not align with “mainstream science” to harken back to former NIH Director Francis Collins.
How does one respond to poor policy decisions made by appointees who actually have relevant degrees and/or experience? I ask this question to emphasize the importance of other experts stepping up and telling us what the best available science shows. We will need scientists to speak out when fringe science is cited as a basis for policy decisions and represents a threat to public health.
With these nominees, ensuring that strong public health safeguards remain in place will be challenging. This will require the scientific community to join the fray. The faster nomination track also signals that this time, the Trump administration is better prepared to implement its agenda. At SciLight, we’ll keep tracking appointments and bringing you information about these scientific issues.
Remember, we’re in this together.
That’s it for today - Thank you so much for reading SciLight!
If you enjoyed today’s post, please like it or share it with others. You can also support the work we do to shine a light on the politicization of science by becoming a paid subscriber!
If you want to share today’s post as a web page with your network, click this button:
If you have suggestions, questions, comments, or want to drop us a line - send it all to scilightsubstack@gmail.com