On September 1, 2025, a rare and urgent warning echoed across the United States’ public health landscape. Nine former directors of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)—spanning every presidential administration from Jimmy Carter through Donald Trump—published a striking opinion piece in The New York Times, cautioning that recent actions by Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. are putting the health of Americans in jeopardy. Their message was clear: what’s happening at the CDC is “unlike anything our country has ever experienced.”
The directors, whose collective tenure at the CDC stretches back nearly fifty years, said they were compelled to speak out following the abrupt firing of CDC director Dr. Susan Monarez less than a month into her role. According to Reuters, Monarez’s removal came after she refused to support sweeping changes to U.S. vaccine policy and the dismissal of high-ranking staff—policies pressed by Kennedy and his principal deputy chief of staff, Stefanie Spear. Four other top CDC officials resigned in protest, deepening the crisis at the nation’s lead public health agency.
“What we are seeing taking place in the Department of Health and Human Services, and at CDC in particular, is not business as usual,” Dr. Richard Besser, one of the op-ed’s co-authors and former acting CDC director during the Obama administration, told ABC News. “There are always changes, different policy priorities when administration changes. But what we’re seeing under the leadership of Secretary Robert F. Kennedy [Jr.] is something different altogether.”
The directors described a pattern of decisions they say could have “wide-ranging impact” on America’s health security. Among their chief concerns: Kennedy’s firing of thousands of federal health workers, the promotion of unproven treatments amid a spreading measles outbreak, and the cancellation of $500 million in federally funded mRNA vaccine research. According to Axios, Kennedy also removed all 17 members of the CDC’s vaccine advisory committee, replacing them with his own selections—many of whom have expressed skepticism about vaccines. These moves, the directors warned, threaten to undermine the CDC’s ability to protect Americans from both everyday and extraordinary health threats.
“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 former directors wrote in their New York Times essay. They emphasized that, while they did not always agree with their own superiors during their respective tenures, “they never gave us reason to doubt that they would rely on data-driven insights for our protection, or that they would support public health workers.”
In the days following Monarez’s ouster, the White House named Jim O’Neill—a Silicon Valley investor and top deputy to Kennedy who has advocated for unproven COVID treatments—as acting CDC director. A White House spokesperson, when contacted by Axios, referred to O’Neill’s statement: “Public health is a noble calling. When it is driven by transparent data and rigorous science, it earns public trust and keeps the world safe… We are helping the agency earn back the trust it had squandered.” The CDC itself did not respond to requests for comment from several media outlets.
The former CDC directors, however, see the situation very differently. In their words, “This is unacceptable, and it should alarm every American, regardless of political leanings.” They argue that Kennedy has broken with decades of precedent by disregarding the expertise of the agency’s leaders and prioritizing an agenda that, in their view, dismantles the country’s vaccine system and limits access to life-saving interventions. “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,” they wrote, as reported by Reuters.
The turmoil comes at a precarious time for public health in the U.S., with authorities warning that the instability could drain the pipeline of future scientific talent. The directors cautioned that Kennedy’s actions—particularly the weakening of public health programs, the cancellation of medical research, and the elevation of officials with unscientific views—could have the most severe consequences for rural and vulnerable populations. “We are worried about the wide-ranging impact that all these decisions will have on America’s health security,” they wrote. “Rural communities and vulnerable populations will be most at risk.”
Beyond the immediate fallout, the directors called for a broad, national response. They urged Congress to exercise its oversight authority over HHS, a sentiment echoed by Senator Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, who said the Senate committee he chairs must investigate the departures at the CDC. “We represent individuals who served in every administration from Jimmy Carter through Donald Trump, Republicans and Democrats, and we were unified in our feeling that what we’re seeing is extremely alarming and that Congress needs to step up and perform its oversight function,” Besser told ABC News.
The op-ed also called on state and local governments to fill funding gaps left by federal cuts, and encouraged philanthropy and the private sector to increase community investments. Medical groups, they wrote, “must continue to stand up for science and truth.” Physicians, too, were urged to guide patients with sound advice and empathy. “And each of us must do what public health does best, to look out for one another,” the directors concluded in their essay.
Not all responses have been critical of the administration’s moves. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt stated that the president “has the authority to fire those who are not aligned with his mission,” according to USA Today. Kennedy himself, after removing Monarez, said, “There’s a lot of trouble at the CDC and it’s going to require getting rid of some people over the long term, in order for us to change the institutional culture.” Supporters of Kennedy’s approach argue that the CDC needs an overhaul to restore public trust and adapt to new health challenges.
Still, the chorus of concern from former CDC leaders is difficult to ignore. Their warning resonates not only as a critique of current policy but as a rallying cry for the nation to defend the integrity of its public health system. “The CDC, which had been looked to as the world’s leading public health institution, is on life support and needs our attention immediately,” Besser told ABC News. “We can’t predict when the next pandemic will be here, but we know there will be future pandemics… and with this Secretary performing in the way that he is, it puts us all at risk.”
As the dust settles from these dramatic changes, one thing is certain: the debate over the future of America’s public health institutions is far from over, and the stakes could hardly be higher.
