President Donald Trump’s administration is forming its health team, and its members are stirring up controversy due to their stances on public health measures and vaccine policies. Two of Trump’s high-profile appointees, Dr. Marty Makary and Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, are making headlines for their unorthodox views on COVID-19 and their roles at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and National Institutes of Health (NIH), respectively.
Dr. Makary, who has been nominated to head the FDA, is noted for his contrarian viewpoint, especially surrounding issues like diabetes management and hypertension treatment. He argues for non-traditional approaches, such as treating diabetes with lifestyle changes rather than insulin prescriptions. “Can diabetes be more effectively treated with cooking classes instead of prescribing insulin?” he questions, illustrating his aim to shift the focus of healthcare.
Conversely, Makary has faced scrutiny for his stance on vaccines, aligning himself with prominent vaccine skeptics. He pronounced long COVID as “overplayed” and has echoed sentiments dismissive of the pandemic's severity, which many advocates argue undermines the experiences of millions suffering from the syndrome. If confirmed, his leadership could push the FDA to shift its regulatory focus and question established norms about drug safety and public health.
Not only is the FDA’s role significant when it involves controlling the safety and efficacy of medications, but it is also tasked with ensuring food safety and regulating health claims. With the fate of many health policies potentially under threat, the FDA’s direction under Makary is being closely monitored. There is concern among public health experts about his tendency to challenge the science behind existing regulations, which some fear could lead to lower public trust.
Meanwhile, Dr. Jay Bhattacharya’s selection to lead the NIH is raising alarms as well. He rose to prominence co-authoring the Great Barrington Declaration, advocating for minimal public health interventions to combat COVID-19. His critics, including former NIH Director Francis Collins, have labeled these views as fringe, underscoring fears about his potential impact on NIH funding priorities and health research agendas.
Bhattacharya's approach aligns with Trump's broader health policies, which likely signal changes to federal support for scientific research focused on infectious diseases. His track record of combative rhetoric against established public health officials, including Anthony Fauci, positions him to significantly alter the NIH’s operational ethos if he gets confirmed.
Both appointees reflect Trump’s broader strategy of surrounding his administration with individuals who have publicly doubted the necessity of pandemic precautions like masking and social distancing, policies viewed as life-saving during the peak of the crisis. Their views raise questions about the reliability of scientific guidance from these agencies and the future of public health policy.
Long COVID advocates express deep concern about the incoming administration’s potential impact on research and funding for the syndrome. Michael Sieverts, policy advisor for the Patient-Led Research Collaborative, offered a grim analysis, stating he fears decreased funding and decreased attention to long COVID issues. He remarked, “The new administration may exacerbate the existing struggles for long COVID funding.”
The barrier for such funding has already proven difficult; the NIH’s efforts to address long COVID through initiatives like the RECOVER program have seen insufficient financial support relative to the actual needs identified by scientists and health advocates.
Despite the predicted hurdles, advocates remain committed to seeking alternative funding sources outside of federal support. There’s optimism within the community about continuing research efforts and grassroots initiatives independent of government assistance. Research from groups like the PolyBio Research Foundation demonstrates this capability to innovate regardless of who occupies the White House.
Despite fears of regress under Trump’s leadership, public health experts strongly emphasizes the necessity for activism and collaboration within the community. Activists maintain hope, emphasizing the importance of building sustainable pathways for research and advocacy amid political turbulence. “We need to create systems beyond electoral politics,” stated Beatrice Adler-Bolton, co-host of the podcast Death Panel.
It is evident, as Trump prepares to assume office once more, the stakes for public health, scientific research, and patient advocacy are higher than ever. With prominent figures openly opposing established public health guidelines leading the charge, many fear this could usher in unprecedented challenges to the integrity of U.S. health agencies. Whether Trump's administration will reshape the FDA and NIH or push U.S. public health protection backwards remains to be seen, and the long COVID and advocacy communities are bracing themselves for what lies ahead.
