On September 1, 2025, a dramatic rebuke of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. erupted onto the national stage, as nine former directors and acting directors of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) published a scathing guest essay in The New York Times. Their message was unequivocal: Kennedy’s leadership, they argued, is endangering the health and security of every American.
The essay, signed by a bipartisan group of public health leaders whose tenures at the CDC span from the late 1970s through the first Trump administration, was prompted by the recent firing of CDC director Dr. Susan Monarez. The former directors—William Foege, William Roper, David Satcher, Jeffrey Koplan, Richard Besser, Tom Frieden, Anne Schuchat, Rochelle Walensky, and Mandy Cohen—expressed deep alarm at what they described as an unprecedented assault on science and the public health infrastructure of the United States.
“Kennedy’s leadership is unlike anything we have ever seen at the agency, and unlike anything our country has ever experienced,” they wrote, according to The New York Times. Their essay did not mince words, accusing Kennedy of undermining vaccines, promoting unproven treatments, slashing funding for medical research, and replacing seasoned experts on federal health advisory committees with unqualified individuals who share what they called his "dangerous and unscientific views."
The former directors’ concerns were not limited to internal CDC politics. They highlighted Kennedy’s announcement of the end of U.S. support for global vaccination programs—initiatives that, they reminded readers, "protect millions of children and keep Americans safe." This, they argued, was justified by Kennedy using "flawed research and making inaccurate statements," a move they warned would leave the nation ill-prepared for future health emergencies.
The essay came just days after President Donald Trump dismissed Dr. Monarez from her post as CDC director, a move that sent shockwaves through the public health community. According to NBC News and The Hill, Monarez, through her lawyers, claimed she was removed for refusing to sign off on what she described as "reckless and unscientific orders." The former directors backed her stance, noting that Monarez had refused to "rubber-stamp dangerous and unfounded vaccine recommendations" and to heed Kennedy’s demand to fire senior CDC staff members. "These are not typical requests from a health secretary to a CDC director. Not even close," they wrote, adding, "None of us would have agreed to the secretary’s demands, and we applaud Dr. Monarez for standing up for the agency and the health of our communities."
Monarez’s ouster was just the beginning. In the days that followed, at least four other top CDC officials resigned, with some accusing the administration of "weaponizing public health." The departures have left the CDC reeling, as the former directors noted: "The loss of Dr. Monarez and other top leaders will make it far more difficult for CDC to do what it has done for about 80 years, to work around the clock to protect Americans from threats to their lives and health."
The essay painted a grim picture of the current state of the CDC. Kennedy, they wrote, had fired thousands of federal health workers and "severely weakened programs designed to protect Americans from cancer, heart attacks, strokes, lead poisoning, injury, violence and more." Amid what they described as "the largest measles outbreak in the United States in a generation," Kennedy was accused of focusing on unproven treatments while downplaying the importance of vaccines. The former directors also charged that he had canceled investments in promising medical research, leaving the nation "ill prepared for future health emergencies."
The impact of these decisions, the essay warned, would be felt most acutely by the nation’s most vulnerable. "Residents of rural communities and people with disabilities will have even more limited access to health care. Families with low incomes who rely most heavily on community health clinics and support from state and local health departments will have fewer resources available to them. Children risk losing access to lifesaving vaccines because of the cost. This is unacceptable, and it should alarm every American, regardless of political leanings," the former directors wrote in The New York Times.
Despite the turmoil, the former directors lauded the CDC staff "who continue to perform their jobs heroically in the face of the excruciating circumstances," stating, "Their ongoing dedication is a model for all of us." But they made clear that morale at the agency had been severely damaged and that the loss of experienced leadership would have long-lasting consequences.
In their essay, the authors called for a broad, national response. They urged Congress to "exercise its oversight authority over HHS," for state and local governments to "fill funding gaps where they can," and for philanthropy and the private sector to "step up their community investments." They also called on medical groups and physicians to "stand up for science and truth" and to continue supporting patients with "sound guidance and empathy."
The White House and Secretary Kennedy have defended the firing of Monarez. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters, "The president and Secretary Kennedy are committed to restoring trust and transparency and credibility to the CDC by ensuring their leadership and their decisions are more public-facing, more accountable, strengthening our public health system and restoring it to its core mission of protecting Americans from communicable diseases, investing in innovation to prevent, detect and respond to future threats." Leavitt also emphasized the president’s authority to remove officials "who are not aligned with his mission."
The controversy has sparked debate across the political spectrum. Supporters of Kennedy and the administration argue that the changes are necessary to restore public trust and accountability, while critics—led by the former CDC directors—warn that the moves are dismantling decades of progress in public health and putting millions at risk. The essay’s signatories, who have served under both Republican and Democratic presidents, insisted that "the CDC is not perfect. What institution is? But over its history, regardless of which party has controlled the White House or Congress, the agency has not wavered from its mission."
They concluded with a powerful call to action: "The men and women who have joined CDC across generations have done so not for prestige or power, but because they believe deeply in the call to service. They deserve an HHS secretary who stands up for health, supports science and has their back. So, too, does our country."
As the dust settles from Monarez’s firing and the subsequent wave of resignations, one thing is clear: the future of American public health is at a crossroads, with the legacy of the CDC and the nation’s well-being hanging in the balance.
