On September 4, 2025, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), sat before the Senate Finance Committee in Washington, D.C., facing a barrage of pointed questions about his leadership and controversial decisions. The hearing, which centered on President Donald Trump’s 2026 health-care agenda, quickly became a lightning rod for debate over the future of America’s public health institutions. Kennedy’s testimony and subsequent media appearances have since ignited fierce discussion about the role of pharmaceutical companies, the direction of federal health agencies, and what it means to protect the public in a time of mounting distrust.
Speaking candidly on Fox & Friends following the hearing, Kennedy delivered a stinging assessment of the current state of U.S. health bodies. When asked to name the last major success among federal health agencies, he replied bluntly, “I don’t think there have been any successes.” According to CNN, Kennedy attributed this lack of achievement to what he described as decades of undue influence from pharmaceutical companies. “We’ve seen a 30- or 40-year decline in the agency because, you know, it’s been infiltrated by the pharmaceutical companies, and they’ve made a series of bad decisions,” he said, highlighting the opioid crisis as a particularly damaging example.
Kennedy’s critique was sweeping. He argued that the HHS and its sub-agencies have, over the last several decades, strayed from their scientific mission due to “corrupting entanglements” with the pharmaceutical industry. “What we want to do now is put an end to it, to end those entanglements, those corrupting entanglements with the pharmaceutical industry, and make this again a gold standard science agency that is protecting the American public,” Kennedy told Fox News, as reported by multiple outlets.
The Senate hearing itself was no less contentious. Lawmakers from both parties pressed Kennedy on his vaccine skepticism and his decision to fire Dr. Susan Monarez, the newly-installed director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The ousting of Monarez set off a chain reaction, leading to the resignation of several other top health officials. Kennedy, for his part, dismissed the Senate proceedings as little more than political theater. “I’ve come to realize that those hearings are performative. They’re theater. And, you know, they’re not the kind of debate or open conversation that democracy would give us at its ideal,” he said in the Fox interview. He went further, accusing senators involved in his confirmation of being beholden to pharmaceutical interests, though he did not provide evidence for this claim. “They don’t want to hear the answers to the questions that they ask me. They want to make a little speech and then shut me down,” Kennedy asserted.
Defending his decision to remove Monarez, Kennedy argued that the agency needed fresh leadership. “We need new blood, and we need new people who are committed to public health and integrity and gold standard science, and the Trump administration is going to make sure that happens,” he stated. The CDC, he acknowledged, has a storied legacy in public health, from leading vaccination campaigns and eradicating smallpox to combating HIV/AIDS and reducing childhood lead poisoning. But, in Kennedy’s view, these achievements are now overshadowed by systemic problems that demand radical reform.
Not everyone shares Kennedy’s vision for change. In early September, more than 1,000 current and former HHS employees signed a letter calling for his resignation, arguing that his leadership “put the health of all Americans at risk.” The letter, cited by The New York Times and CNN, accused Kennedy of undermining national health by facilitating Monarez’s firing, prompting the resignations of seasoned CDC leaders, and appointing “political ideologues” to key roles in vaccine policy. The signatories also criticized his decision to rescind emergency use authorizations for Covid-19 vaccines, claiming he did so without providing transparent data or methodology. “Secretary Kennedy continues to endanger the nation’s health,” the letter read.
The controversy over Kennedy’s leadership has not gone unnoticed by the broader public health community. On September 7, 2025, Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, Director-General of the World Health Organization (WHO), issued a rare public statement of support for the CDC. In a social media post, Dr. Tedros called the U.S. agency’s work “invaluable and must be protected.” He recounted how, during his time as Ethiopia’s Health Minister, he sent a team to Atlanta to learn from the CDC, and that the establishment of Africa CDC was inspired by the U.S. institution. “A significant part of what the Ethiopian Public Health Agency does is based on these best practices,” he wrote, underscoring the CDC’s global influence.
Amid these institutional battles, Kennedy has also waded into scientific controversy. During his Fox & Friends appearance, he addressed reports of an upcoming HHS study that could link autism in children to acetaminophen (Tylenol) use during pregnancy. Kennedy was careful to describe the findings as “preliminary,” emphasizing that the agency was still reviewing years of research. “We are trying to get the information to the public as soon as we have it. There are years and years of studies about that we are looking at today for the first time, and we’re finding a number of different indicators, a number of different signals,” he explained. Kennedy cautioned, however, that “any speculation about what’s in those reports, at this point, is speculative.”
Kennedy’s stance on vaccines and pharmaceutical regulation has long sparked debate, and his current tenure at HHS is no exception. His critics argue that his skepticism toward established vaccine protocols and his willingness to upend traditional agency leadership threaten to erode public trust in science. Supporters, meanwhile, see his efforts as a necessary corrective to decades of perceived industry capture and bureaucratic inertia. The Trump administration has signaled its backing for Kennedy’s reforms, promising to deliver “new people who are committed to public health and integrity and exemplary science.”
The stakes of this debate are high. The CDC, for all its recent turmoil, remains a linchpin of both national and global public health. Its work has shaped responses to infectious diseases, foodborne outbreaks, and chronic health threats for generations. The question now is whether the agency, under Kennedy’s stewardship, can reclaim—or redefine—its role as a model of scientific excellence and public protection.
As the dust settles from a tumultuous week in Washington, the future of America’s health agencies hangs in the balance. The coming months will reveal whether Kennedy’s vision for reform can withstand mounting internal opposition, external scrutiny, and the ever-present challenge of safeguarding public health in a deeply divided nation.
