RFK Jr. faces blowback from senators, former vaccine committee members after firings
Recently fired members of a committee that advises the federal government on immunization safety lashed out at Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., saying that their terminations will limit access to vaccines and put American lives at risk.
Kennedy last week abruptly dismissed all members of the committee, which advises the Centers for Diseases Control on vaccine safety. Two days after he dissolved the committee on June 9, Kennedy named eight new members to the Advisory Committee for Immunization Practices, including some who have advocated against vaccines.
"We are deeply concerned that these destabilizing decisions, made without clear rationale, may roll back the achievements of U.S. immunization policy, impact people's access to lifesaving vaccines, and ultimately put U.S. families at risk of dangerous and preventable illnesses,' the 17 former members wrote in an article published in medical journal JAMA on June 16.
The ACIP charter specifies that committee members serve overlapping terms to ensure continuity - and dismissing all the members at the same time 'have stripped the program of the institutional knowledge and continuity that have been essential to its success over decades,' wrote the members, whose committee recommendations also affect insurance coverage and safeguard broad access for vaccines.
In announcing his decision to oust the members, Kennedy, a longtime vaccine skeptic, claimed a 'clean sweep' was necessary to reestablish public confidence in vaccine science.
The committee would 'no longer function as a rubber stamp for industry profit-taking agendas,' he said.
That was the opposite of what Kennedy told Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-Louisiana, chair of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, during his confirmation hearing to become Trump's cabinet member.
"If confirmed, he will maintain the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices without changes," Cassidy said during the hearing.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), ranking member of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions called for an immediate bipartisan investigation into the terminations.
'For decades, Secretary Kennedy has spread lies and dangerous conspiracy theories about safe and effective vaccines that have saved millions of lives,' Sanders wrote in a letter to Cassidy. 'Unfortunately, since he has been confirmed I am very concerned that Secretary Kennedy is doubling down on his war on science and disinformation campaign that will lead to preventable illness and death.'
Additionally, 22 senators, including Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, and Sen. Raphael Warnock of Georgia, wrote a joint letter to Kennedy saying they are 'troubled' by the appointment of several members to the committee who have a 'documented history of anti-vaccine ideology and peddling misinformation.'
Dr. Robert Malone, one of the new Kenendy appointees is a virologist and vaccine skeptic who became well-known during the COVID-19 pandemic for spreading misinformation about the virus on conservative shows and podcasts. The physician-scientist and biochemist has falsely claimed spike proteins from COVID-19 mRNA vaccines often cause permanent damage to children's vital organs.
Firing every member of the committee ahead of their next meeting scheduled for June 25-27 'eliminates the advisory board's ability to debate and make well-informed recommendations, putting American lives at risk,' the senators wrote.
Swapna Venugopal Ramaswamy is a White House Correspondent for USA TODAY. You can follow her on X @SwapnaVenugopal
This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: RFK Jr. faces blowback after vaccine committee firings
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
34 minutes ago
- USA Today
Texas politicians lead effort to study a psychedelic drug. What is ibogaine?
Ibogaine is illegal in the U.S., but growing evidence shows its promise treating the effects of traumatic brain injury and substance use disorder. A once obscure traditional psychedelic plant from Africa has made headlines recently as Texas pushes for more research and a prominent Republican wrote a vigorous endorsement of its possible use for the treatment of addiction and for veterans experiencing mental health issues. Ibogaine is illegal for use in the United States, but a growing body of evidence has shown its promise treating the effects of traumatic brain injury and substance use disorder. Earlier in June, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott signed legislation to allocate $50 million for clinical trials approved by the Food and Drug Administration to study ibogaine. Texas is set to lead research into the drug's benefits treating mental health issues and addiction as a potential medication. Former Energy Secretary Rick Perry, also a former Texas governor, wrote a June 27 Washington Post op-ed supporting ibogaine research and criticizing the legacy of the war on drugs, started by President Richard Nixon and touted by President Ronald Reagan. Perry said he has 'come to realize just how wrong that narrative was.' 'That fear-based messaging kept us from exploring treatments that could have saved countless lives,' Perry wrote. Perry and a growing number of conservatives have argued ibogaine could be one of those treatments. Here's what to know about the drug. What is ibogaine? Ibogaine derives from the root of the iboga plant native to western-central Africa. It's been used in ceremonial rituals for centuries. It has hallucinogenic properties. The United States outlawed ibogaine in 1967 along with other psychotropic drugs. The Controlled Substances Act of 1970 placed it as a schedule I hallucinogenic drug, along with marijuana. Ibogaine's classification prevented researchers from studying its effects. But unlike other schedule 1 drugs such as heroin, ibogaine has anti-addictive properties. There are risks since ibogaine can delay the body's normal electrical signals that control heart rhythm, which could lead to death. Other countries, such as Mexico, have allowed its use. American veterans and others have traveled to smaller, clandestine clinics for treatment to deal with depression, post-traumatic stress disorder and addiction. Many clinics are along the border and around cities such as Tijuana. Why is it in the news? At the state and federal level, there is growing interest in studying psychedelic drugs to treat veterans and others. Texas passed legislation earlier in June to study the drug with a public university alongside a company and hospital, Abbott's office said. Dr. Marty Makary, the FDA commissioner, has said expanding research on psychedelic drugs is a top priority for the Trump administration. In his op-ed, Perry cited the experiences of Morgan and Marcus Luttrell, twin combat veterans, who used ibogaine for recovery. Morgan Luttrell is now a Republican congressman from Texas who has advocated for ibogaine and other psychedelic drugs as treatment options. In January 2025, Perry and W. Bryan Hubbard, an advocate for ibogaine treatment, appeared on Joe Rogan's podcast to discuss ibogaine's benefits as a plant-based medicine. Hubbard led a Kentucky task force that sought to use opioid settlement funds to research ibogaine's effects to treat addiction, but the initiative failed to gain support in the state. Hubbard and Perry eventually launched the Texas Ibogaine Initiative, which helped spur the state funding. What has research shown? Research, such as a Stanford University study of 30 male combat veterans, has shown ibogaine's promise. Coupled with magnesium sulfate to address heart effects, ibogaine appeared to reduce symptoms of PTSD, anxiety and depression, and improve cognitive function from traumatic brain injury, according to the study, published in 2024 in the eminent journal Nature Medicine. Other studies have shown benefits treating addiction and depression. What do critics say? One issue with ibogaine is the ability to produce it, because it is derived from a rare plant and has mostly been used for ceremonial purposes. There is research to help innovate its safe production, but it could be difficult for the drug to be more widely available, as researchers at the University of California, Davis, Institute for Psychedelics and Neurotherapeutics have said. And while it's shown benefits with combat veterans, questions remain on its efficacy among randomized participants. With Texas' research, ibogaine could get closer to FDA approval for its use as a medication.
Politico
an hour ago
- Politico
Trade talks morph into Trump's global bargaining table
President Donald Trump's trade talks aren't just about trade. They're about tech regulation, defense spending, critical minerals — even war and peace. Since slapping sweeping tariffs on nearly every country in April, Trump has turned narrow, trade-focused talks into kitchen-sink diplomatic forums. In closed-door negotiations, the president's top lieutenants have pressured foreign governments to significantly increase their military budgets, upend their tax systems and scuttle domestic legislation that could hurt U.S. businesses. The president has even leveraged U.S.-brokered ceasefires, such as the one between Israel and Iran, to induce other countries to buy more American goods It's part of a broader effort by Trump to use tariffs not only as a tool to boost domestic manufacturing and revenue, but as a lever to extract concessions on a host of unrelated issues. 'Access to the American market should cost you. Additional tariffs or additional levies — of course it makes sense to tie it to foreign policy. Why wouldn't we?' said former Trump adviser Steve Cortes. 'I get why countries are like, 'What the hell? This isn't the America we've been dealing with.' No, it isn't,' Cortes added. 'You just have to decide, is it worth it? If it is, well, play by our rules.' Trump sees a win-win: If countries refuse to bend to his will, he keeps his 'Liberation Day' tariffs in place, protecting domestic businesses and boosting U.S. coffers. Case in point: Trump on Friday ended trade negotiations with Canadain part because of its digital services tax on American tech companies slated to start being collected Monday, which he called a 'direct and blatant attack on our Country' in a post on Truth Social. The broad set of issues at play has frustrated other negotiations ahead of the president's self-imposed July 8 deadline to broker trade deals, as foreign leaders grapple with the fact that everything is on the table when negotiating with the United States. The ongoing uncertainty threatens to upend the global economy, confuse American industry, alienate U.S. allies and drive countries into the arms of China. 'It's unprecedented, if not completely dubious,' said one official from an Asian country, pointing to the Trump administration raising antitrust legislation in talks with South Korea and export controls in talks with China, as an example. The person, granted anonymity to discuss the negotiations, added: 'There is no indication it's working, and Trump will not reverse course.' But White House aides argue that the administration's kitchen-sink approach matches the scope of the problem. 'This whole thing is unprecedented. I mean, we are trying to basically reset what's a four or five decade-old status quo in which the United States was basically subject to free riding by a lot of our trading partners and other countries in the world, whether it be on trade, on defense and national security,' said a White House official, granted anonymity to share the administration's thinking. 'I push back on the idea that you can silo off trade,' the official added. 'They're all connected here.' At the NATO summit in the Netherlands this week, Trump threatened new tariffs on Spain after the country refused to increase its defense spending in line with other NATO allies — even though Spain is part of the European Union and doesn't negotiate trade deals independently. It's also been a hot topic in negotiations with Japan and South Korea, which have balked at the 5 percent across-the-board defense spending target the U.S. has set for its allies in Asia despite their exclusion from NATO. Trump this month said the U.S., which spends roughly 3.4 percent of its GDP on defense, would not abide by the 5 percent pledge. Trump has positioned Canadian investment in his 'Golden Dome' missile defense system for the United States as a way for the country to 'prove' itself amid ongoing trade negotiations — though the U.S. actually can't build the system without help from its northern neighbor. At the same time, the U.S. is pressuring South Korea to abandon antitrust legislative proposals aimed at regulating online platforms that are opposed by Google, Apple and Meta. It has also, like Canada, pressured the U.K. and EU countries to eliminate their digital services tax. On Tuesday, Trump added another demand, suggesting that China boost purchases of American oil as a thank you for the Israel-Iran ceasefire — an ask that comes as the president pushes Beijing to increase its imports from the U.S. And he's implied that he used the cudgel of trade wars to negotiate peace between India and Pakistan this spring, though India has disputed the suggestion. Trump took a similar approach during his first term when he threatened hefty levies to get Mexico to curb the flow of Central American migrants to the U.S., and tariffed China over 'unfair practices' in part related to the theft of U.S. intellectual property. In his second term, Trump has built on that strategy. He levied tariffs on Mexico, Canada and China in February aimed at curbing the tide of fentanyl and undocumented immigrants into the U.S. He also in April threatened 25 percent 'secondary tariffs' on any country that imports oil from Venezuela, a move he framed as targeting the country's authoritarian leader Nicolás Maduro and the Tren de Aragua gang. Foreign leaders are confronting the very real possibility that if they slow walk negotiations or abandon talks, Trump would happily slap a tariff large enough to effectively serve as an embargo with the U.S. — cutting off access to the world's largest economy. 'The president feels that tariffs are leverage — leverage for the relationship, of which trade is one component. That's why each of these negotiations has unique elements to it, which makes matters more unpredictable,' said one former White House official, granted anonymity to speak candidly about the president's approach. But giving into the president's demands on non-trade issues isn't a guarantee of tariff relief. Trump has shown no signs that he will heed French President Emmanuel Macron's calls for an end to the U.S.'s trade war with the European Union after NATO members agreed to hike defense spending to 5 percent of their gross domestic product. That unwillingness to significantly budge on his array of tariffs has bogged down trade negotiations and hindered the administration from crafting substantial trade deals. As the U.S. has set out to negotiate deals with more than 60 trading partners, world leaders have grown increasingly frustrated with what they say are unbalanced demands from the U.S. Other trading partners, including the European Union, have bristled at the terms of the UK framework and said they would not agree to a similar deal. That arrangement left a 10 percent so-called baseline tariff in place, while laying out a path to slash sector-specific tariffs. The bloc isn't alone, and Trump's numerous demands and 'do-it-or-else' approach have made it challenging for countries to corral the domestic political support they'll need in order to sell any deal at home. 'If the deal gets too imbalanced, it will get a very bad reception by most of our national public opinions,' said one European official granted anonymity to speak candidly about the state of negotiations with the United States. 'I don't think the EU side and countries can really accept a very imbalanced deal without risk of it backfiring.' But former Trump administration officials doubt the White House is about to change course. 'I see no evidence that the administration intends to reverse or scale back its use of this approach,' said Patrick Childress, a former U.S. Trade Representative assistant general counsel.
Indianapolis Star
an hour ago
- Indianapolis Star
Trump's refusal to enforce TikTok ban is his most lawless presidential act
The first several months of Donald Trump's second presidential term have been marked by controversy and charges that he's a lawless president. However, the most brazen example of Trump's lawlessness is his refusal to enforce the TikTok ban, which has been passed by Congress and upheld by the Supreme Court. On June 19, Trump extended the deadline for TikTok to shut down by another 90 days, marking the third time he has done so. The TikTok ban is the law of the land, and Trump's refusal to enforce it is a dereliction of his duties as president. Those who are silent on it should put aside their own personal motives and bring more attention to this fact. Many forget that a TikTok ban was originally Trump's idea, and that many Democrats wrote the idea off as just another piece of his anti-China agenda. However, things have changed. Trump seemingly developed a soft spot for TikTok because he believes it helped him win reelection. Still, in the time between Trump's original stance and his change of heart on the issue, a law banning TikTok passed the House and Senate and was signed in 2024 by then-President Joe Biden. The Supreme Court even upheld the ban, against the arguments of TikTok's lawyers. The law banning TikTok does have a provision that allows for the president to delay the deadline for TikTok to cease operations or agree to a sale. Still, the criteria allowing for such an extension are nowhere close to being fulfilled. Briggs: Jim Banks would let Trump commit any crime you can imagine The text of the ban allows for the president to extend the deadline a single time for 90 days, so long as TikTok is close to reaching a deal with an American company to sell. There is no indication that's the case, and Trump's arbitrary executive orders are flagrantly illegal. Even Trump's guise in refusing to enforce the law – the idea that he is attempting to give TikTok time to broker a deal − doesn't make sense. Nothing would be more compelling for TikTok to sell the app to an American company than the ban going into effect. An app that cannot run is useless to its owners, and their best course of action would be to sell. The president does not have discretion over which laws he would like to enforce and which he would like to ignore. Trump's decision to arbitrarily extend TikTok's lifespan does exactly that. The president, along with the rest of the executive branch, has an obligation to enforce the laws of the nation that have been passed by Congress and signed into law. A president's job is to enforce the law, whereas Congress' job is to decide what the law is. When a president can choose which laws he is to enforce, he is deciding what the law is, in a sense. Hicks: The middle class isn't disappearing. It's just spending money differently That's why Trump's refusal to enforce the ban is his most lawless action as president. Sure, there's the constitutionality of his deportation schemes and his reinterpretation of birthright citizenship, but those instances had judicial checks. In no other area is Trump as actively derelict in his duties as president without repercussions as he is in relation to the TikTok ban. For all the talk about Trump being a lawless president, Democrats and Republicans have both been relatively quiet about this single worst example of Trump acting as such. Republicans should be wary about the next administration of Democrats that comes along refusing to enforce a certain law because they disagree with it, or they simply don't feel like it. If Democrats were the ones refusing to enforce the ban on TikTok, it would be the only thing Republicans talked about. I'm sure that the outrage would be far louder if Trump were refusing to enforce other statutes, such as parts of the National Firearms Act, the tax code, or any other number of statutes that Democrats are sympathetic to. However, because it concerns a popular social media platform remaining in service, the complaints are rather quiet. Refusal to enforce laws is not a path Americans want our presidents to travel. That slippery slope can take us to some very dangerous places.
