logo
Trump's top brass turnover hits HHS

Trump's top brass turnover hits HHS

Politico2 days ago
With help from Robert King
Driving the Day
YOU'RE FIRED! Since taking office, President Donald Trump has brusquely removed a number of top officials from their positions across departments who didn't align politically with his administration. That upheaval has included a string of high-profile firings across the nation's health agencies.
The pattern of dismissals highlights the growing tension between science and politics as Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. implements his Make America Healthy Again agenda and reshapes federal policy on disease prevention, food and vaccines.
Most recently, the FDA's top vaccine regulator, Vinay Prasad, was given the boot after just three months on the job. The president ordered his removal this week, overriding Kennedy and FDA Commissioner Marty Makary, who opposed the move.
Background: Earlier this month, close Trump ally Laura Loomer began attacking Prasad, writing on her website that he was a 'progressive leftist saboteur undermining President Trump's FDA.' Other conservative voices, like former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) and The Wall Street Journal editorial board, piled onto the criticism of Prasad and his approach to rare disease therapies under the FDA's purview — a concern that Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) raised with the White House on Monday, a day before Prasad was fired.
Prasad's predecessor, Dr. Peter Marks, was also unceremoniously pushed out of the position four months ago, after leading the FDA's vaccine division for more than eight years. In March, Marks abruptly resigned from his post as the FDA's top vaccine regulator under pressure from Kennedy after his team concluded they needed a fresh start as part of a broader HHS reorganization. The ouster came as Marks had grown increasingly concerned by Kennedy's attitude toward vaccines and was particularly at odds with the secretary over his tepid response to the Texas measles outbreak.
'If Peter Marks does not want to get behind restoring science to its golden standard and promoting radical transparency, then he has no place at FDA under the strong leadership of Secretary Kennedy,' an HHS spokesperson told POLITICO in a statement at the time.
Zooming out: And there's also been upheaval among Trump's nominees for top positions at HHS. The White House abruptly scrapped former Florida Rep. David Weldon's nomination to lead the CDC in March, just hours before his confirmation hearing, after determining he didn't have the support to win confirmation on the Senate floor. Some Senate Republicans had expressed concerns about Weldon's fringe views on vaccines.
Trump also withdrew his first nominee for surgeon general, Dr. Janette Nesheiwat, in May, a day before her scheduled Senate confirmation hearing. The decision came after reports that Nesheiwat, an urgent care doctor and former Fox News contributor, obfuscated facts about her medical education. At the time, Loomer seized on the controversy and encouraged Trump to pick someone else.
Hours after pulling Nesheiwat's nomination, Trump tapped wellness influencer Casey Means to serve as surgeon general. Means, the sister of top Kennedy adviser Calley Means, is still awaiting confirmation.
WELCOME TO FRIDAY PULSE. President Donald Trump gave drugmakers an ultimatum yesterday: Lower your prices or face unknown consequences. Send your tips, scoops and feedback to khooper@politico.com and sgardner@politico.com, and follow along @kelhoops and @sophie_gardnerj.
MORNING MONEY: CAPITAL RISK — POLITICO's flagship financial newsletter has a new Friday edition built for the economic era we're living in: one shaped by political volatility, disruption and a wave of policy decisions with sector-wide consequences. Each week, Morning Money: Capital Risk brings sharp reporting and analysis on how political risk is moving markets and how investors are adapting. Want to know how health care regulation, tariffs, or court rulings could ripple through the economy? Start here.
Eye on Insurers
STRONG EARNINGS FOR TWO KEY PLAYERS — Major health insurers Aetna and Cigna both reported strong financial results for the second quarter of 2025 on Thursday, despite the rising medical cost trends plaguing other major insurers this year.
At CVS Health's Aetna, which shook up its leadership last year after it struggled to control costs with more members seeking medical care, has seen continual improvements in cost savings throughout 2025, executives said during an earnings call Thursday.
Making improvements at Aetna 'has been a top priority' the company executed by enhancing its operations through technology and reducing 'friction for our members and health care professionals,' said David Joyner, CEO of CVS Health. He pointed to changes Aetna made to its prior approval requirements — bundling prior authorizations for certain services like maternity care.
'We're starting to see the results of these efforts, delivering better experiences while also allowing us to better navigate this elevated utilization environment,' he said.
At Cigna, executives reaffirmed their 2025 guidance on Thursday. Its pharmacy business, Evernorth Health Services, drove a spike in revenue in the second quarter, even as its insurance segment's revenue declined. Cigna's cost trends were elevated in the second quarter but still in line with its expectations, said Cigna President and COO Brian Evanko during an earnings call.
Key context: Other key players in the health insurance space, including Centene, Molina Healthcare and UnitedHealth Group, have slashed their yearly guidance over the past few months, citing rising medical costs across Medicaid, Obamacare and Medicare Advantage.
At the Agencies
CMS FINALIZES HOSPITAL PAY BUMP — The Trump administration finalized on Thursday a $5 billion increase in payments to hospitals for inpatient care, Robert reports.
The pay bump from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services takes effect in the next federal fiscal year that begins in October. It also includes a $2 billion bump in payments to hospitals with a high amount of charity care.
Vaccines
COVID VACCINE CONFUSION — Most Americans don't expect to get a Covid-19 vaccine this fall, according to a KFF Tracking Poll on Health Information and Trust published today.
Nearly 60 percent of adults said they likely wouldn't get the shot, while 40 percent said they would 'definitely' or 'probably' get it — mostly older adults (55 percent) and Democrats (70 percent). Among Republicans, 59 percent said they would 'definitely not' get the vaccine.
Most adults who plan to get the shot said they're concerned about the vaccine's availability and whether their insurance will cover it.
Why it matters: The findings come after Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a longtime vaccine skeptic, announced in May that the government would no longer recommend Covid vaccines for healthy pregnant people and children. The move has sparked pushback from public health experts and doctors — including some who sued Kennedy — arguing the move violated longstanding norms governing U.S. immunization policy.
The agency ultimately didn't pull the recommendation from the CDC vaccine panel's childhood schedule and instead downgraded it to 'shared decisionmaking' — a differentiation that doctor groups say has made it harder for providers to counsel patients and for practices to assess insurance coverage. Kennedy and other top HHS officials have said there isn't sufficient data to show that healthy children and healthy pregnant women benefited from Covid vaccination.
In June, Kennedy fired all 17 members of the CDC's independent vaccine panel and replaced them with several vaccine skeptics. The panel recommends vaccines that insurers are then largely obligated to cover with no cost-sharing under the Affordable Care Act.
More findings: About half of parents with children under 18 said they don't know whether federal agencies recommend healthy children get the Covid vaccine this fall, according to the KFF poll.
About 20 percent of adults said Kennedy's vaccine policy changes are making people safer, while 36 percent said they're making people less safe. The remainder said they don't know enough to say (31 percent) or that Kennedy's changes won't make a difference (13 percent).
The national poll was conducted from July 8 to 14 online and by telephone among 1,283 U.S. adults.
In the States
KRATOM WARS — Federal health officials' push to schedule a controversial herbal supplement as a controlled substance has revived efforts among California lawmakers to regulate the product, called kratom, POLITICO's Rachel Bluth reports.
Earlier this week, HHS took initial steps toward classifying a derivative of kratom, 7-hydroxymitragynine, as a controlled substance after seeing a rise in overdoses and emergency-room visits linked to products containing 7-OH. The designation would place restrictions on the substance's production, distribution and possession.
Washington's efforts to assert control have spurred California Assemblymember Jasmeet Bains to revisit her earlier attempt to regulate kratom in the state, which stalled partly because of competing messaging lawmakers received from makers of products that use leaves of the kratom plant and those using newer, more potent derivatives.
Key context: The faction of the industry making natural leaf-based products, which previously had been the target of suspicion from drug enforcement and public health officials, is seizing on the opportunity to make the case that natural leaf products should be legitimized through regulations and 7-OH cordoned off as a separate, more dangerous product. Proponents of the products say they can be a substitute for opioid pain relievers.
The 7-OH manufacturers, meanwhile, dispute claims that their products are opioids or resemble heroin. They see themselves as offering newer, better products that entice customers and leave legacy brands behind.
WHAT WE'RE READING
POLITICO's Carmen Paun reports on the Senate Appropriations Committee's approval of a 2026 funding bill for HHS.
The Associated Press' Mike Stobbe reports on the fall in U.S. childhood vaccination rates last year as the share of children with exemptions rose to an all-time high.
BioPharma Dive's Delilah Alvarado reports on Moderna laying off 10 percent of its workforce as part of an effort to cut expenses amid slowing vaccine sales.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

India On Trump Nobel Prize Nomination: MEA Bold Response to White House Peace Claims
India On Trump Nobel Prize Nomination: MEA Bold Response to White House Peace Claims

Time Business News

time20 minutes ago

  • Time Business News

India On Trump Nobel Prize Nomination: MEA Bold Response to White House Peace Claims

Source – LegalPress New Delhi – The official India On Trump Nobel Prize Nomination response emerged on Friday when the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) diplomatically sidestepped questions regarding the White House's aggressive campaign for President Donald Trump to receive the Nobel Peace Prize. This measured diplomatic response reflects India's careful approach to addressing American claims about conflict resolution. During a press briefing, MEA spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal was directly questioned about the India On Trump Nobel Prize Nomination issue, specifically regarding White House assertions that Trump had ended several global conflicts, including the dispute between India and Pakistan. The spokesperson's response demonstrated India's preference for avoiding direct engagement with controversial American political narratives. Diplomatic Deflection Strategy The India On Trump Nobel Prize Nomination query received a characteristically diplomatic response from Jaiswal, who stated, 'It is better to take this question to the White House.' This carefully crafted deflection avoids both endorsement and criticism of American claims while maintaining India's traditional non-interference stance in foreign political processes. This approach to the India on Trump Nobel Prize Nomination reflects New Delhi's broader strategy of avoiding entanglement in American domestic political debates, particularly those involving disputed claims about international diplomatic achievements. The MEA's response maintains diplomatic neutrality while neither validating nor challenging White House assertions. White House Claims and International Conflict Resolution The context surrounding the India on Trump Nobel Prize Nomination stems from White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt's comprehensive advocacy for Trump's Nobel Peace Prize candidacy. Leavitt claimed that Trump had 'ended conflicts between Thailand and Cambodia, Israel and Iran, Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, India and Pakistan, Serbia and Kosovo and Egypt and Ethiopia.' The India On Trump Nobel Prize Nomination campaign specifically highlights alleged American mediation in the India-Pakistan conflict as evidence of Trump's peace-making credentials. According to White House calculations, Trump brokered approximately one peace deal monthly during his six months in office, making him deserving of international recognition. Leavitt's statement that 'It's well past time that President Trump was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize' directly incorporates the India on Trump Nobel Prize Nomination narrative as supporting evidence for this assertion. This claim positions the alleged India-Pakistan ceasefire as a significant diplomatic achievement worthy of Nobel recognition. India's Historical Position on Bilateral Negotiations The India On Trump Nobel Prize Nomination issue highlights a fundamental disagreement between New Delhi and Washington regarding the nature of India-Pakistan conflict resolution. India has consistently maintained that the cessation of hostilities between the two nations was achieved through bilateral negotiations rather than external mediation. New Delhi's rejection of Trump's mediation claims creates complications for the India On Trump Nobel Prize Nomination narrative promoted by the White House. This disagreement represents a significant diplomatic challenge, as India's official position directly contradicts the foundation of American Nobel Prize advocacy. Despite repeated assertions from Trump linking trade deals to conflict resolution, India's stance on the India on Trump Nobel Prize Nomination remains unchanged. The government continues to emphasize bilateral diplomatic processes rather than acknowledging American intervention in regional peace initiatives. Pakistan's Contrasting Position While India maintains diplomatic distance from the India on Trump Nobel Prize Nomination campaign, Pakistan has embraced and actively supported Trump's candidacy. Islamabad has publicly thanked Trump for allegedly brokering the India-Pakistan deal, creating a stark contrast with India's position. In June, Pakistan formally nominated Trump for the 2026 Nobel Peace Prize, specifically citing his 'diplomatic intervention and pivotal leadership' during the India-Pakistan crisis. This Pakistani endorsement adds complexity to the India on Trump Nobel Prize Nomination debate by providing official support from one of the alleged beneficiaries. The Pakistani government's statement declared: 'Government of Pakistan Recommends President Donald J. Trump for 2026 Nobel Peace Prize. The Government of Pakistan has decided to formally recommend President Donald J. Trump for the 2026 Nobel Peace Prize, in recognition of his decisive diplomatic intervention and pivotal leadership during the recent India-Pakistan crisis.' International Recognition and Norwegian Nobel Committee The India on Trump Nobel Prize Nomination campaign faces the ultimate test of international legitimacy through the Norwegian Nobel Committee's evaluation process. Despite various endorsements and advocacy efforts, the Committee has maintained its traditional silence regarding Trump's candidacy. The Norwegian Nobel Committee's approach to the India on Trump Nobel Prize Nomination reflects their standard practice of avoiding public commentary on potential candidates. This institutional discretion means that public advocacy campaigns, regardless of their intensity or political backing, do not necessarily influence final selection decisions. Geopolitical Implications and Diplomatic Complexities The India on Trump Nobel Prize Nomination issue illustrates broader challenges in contemporary international diplomacy, where domestic political narratives intersect with complex international relationships. India's careful response demonstrates the delicate balance required when addressing claims that involve multiple stakeholders with differing perspectives. The ongoing debate surrounding the India on Trump Nobel Prize Nomination reflects deeper questions about conflict resolution attribution, the role of external mediation in bilateral disputes, and the intersection of international recognition with domestic political objectives. Future Diplomatic Considerations As the India on Trump Nobel Prize Nomination campaign continues, India's diplomatic strategy will likely maintain its current trajectory of non-engagement with American political narratives while preserving bilateral relationship stability. This approach allows India to protect its sovereignty over conflict resolution narratives while avoiding unnecessary diplomatic friction with the United States. TIME BUSINESS NEWS

‘They roll right over': Many Democratic voters call their party weak and ineffective, poll finds
‘They roll right over': Many Democratic voters call their party weak and ineffective, poll finds

Los Angeles Times

time20 minutes ago

  • Los Angeles Times

‘They roll right over': Many Democratic voters call their party weak and ineffective, poll finds

WASHINGTON — Many Democrats see their political party as 'weak' or 'ineffective,' while Republicans are more complimentary of their party, although a small but significant share describe the GOP as 'greedy' or say it is generally 'bad,' according to a new poll. The poll conducted by the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research in July reveals warning signs for both major U.S. parties as the political focus shifts to elections in New Jersey and Virginia this fall and the midterm contests next year. Respondents were asked to share the first word or phrase that came to mind when they thought of the Republican and Democratic parties. Answers were then sorted into broad categories, including negative and positive attributes. Overall, U.S. adults held a dim view of both parties, with about 4 in 10 using negative attributes, including words such as 'dishonest' or 'stupid.' But nearly nine months after Republican Donald Trump won a second presidential term, Democrats appear to be harboring more resentment about the state of their party than do Republicans. Democrats were likelier to describe their own party negatively than Republicans. Republicans were about twice as likely to describe their own party positively. 'They're spineless,' Cathia Krehbiel, a 48-year-old Democrat from Indianola, Iowa, said of her party. She believes the party's response to the Trump administration has been 'scattershot.' 'I just feel like there's so much recently that's just going abhorrently wrong,' Krehbiel said. 'And they speak up a little bit and they roll right over.' Overall, roughly one-third of Democrats described their party negatively in the open-ended question. About 15% described the Democratic Party using such words as 'weak' or 'apathetic,' while an additional 10% believe it is broadly 'ineffective' or 'disorganized.' Only about 2 in 10 Democrats described their party positively, with roughly 1 in 10 saying it is 'empathetic' or 'inclusive.' An additional 1 in 10 used more general positive descriptors. It is unclear what effect the Democrats' unease may have on upcoming elections or the political debate in Washington, but no political organization wants to be plagued by internal divisions. Still, the Democrats' frustration appears to reflect their concern that party leaders are not doing enough to stop Trump's GOP, which controls Washington. There is little sign that such voters would abandon their party in favor of Trump's allies in upcoming elections, and the vast majority of Democrats described the GOP negatively. But disaffected Democrats might decide not to vote at all. That could undermine their party's push to reclaim at least one chamber of Congress in 2026. Jim Williams, a 78-year-old retiree from Harper Woods, Mich., is a self-described political independent who said he typically supports Democrats, but he is 'disappointed' with the party and its murky message. He views the Republican Party as much worse, saying it 'has lost it' under Trump's leadership. 'All he does is bully and call names. They've got no morals, no ethics. And the more they back him, the less I like them,' he said of Trump. Republicans are about twice as likely as Democrats to describe their party positively, with many also using straightforward ideological descriptors like 'conservative.' About 4 in 10 Republicans used positive attributes to characterize the GOP, making general mentions of words such as 'patriotic' or 'hardworking,' or offering associations with the word 'freedom.' Samuel Washington, 65, of Chicago, said he typically votes Republican. He praised Trump's leadership, even while acknowledging that the president's policies on trade and spending might be creating short-term economic hardship. 'There's a lot of pain, but the pain is the result of 12 years of misuse and misguided leadership from the Democratic Party,' he said. 'I'm feeling really good about Republicans and the direction that they're going.' But views were not uniformly good. About 2 in 10 Republicans said something negative about the party, including phrases such as 'greedy,' 'for the rich' or 'corrupt.' Republican Dick Grayson, an 83-year-old veteran from Trade, Tenn., said he is 'disappointed' by his party's fealty to Trump. Among other things, he pointed to the price tag of Trump's tax-and-spend package, which will add nearly $3.3 trillion to the nation's debt over the next decade, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. 'I've always been a Republican, but I'm disillusioned about both parties,' Grayson said. Among all Americans, the poll finds that the Republican Party is viewed slightly more negatively than the Democratic Party. The different is not large: 43% used negative words to describe the Republicans, compared with 39% for the Democrats. Much of the negativity is driven by the opposing party — and nonaligned voters' distaste for both. So-called political independents are much likelier to describe both parties with negative attributes rather than positive descriptors, though a significant share did not offer an opinion. Curtis Musser, a 60-year-old unaffiliated voter from Beverly Hills, Fla., said both parties have shifted too far toward the extreme for his liking. He said he is ready for a serious third party to emerge before the next presidential election, pointing to Elon Musk's new America Party, which has been slow to launch. 'Maybe he would get us headed in the right direction,' the retired schoolteacher said. The AP-NORC poll of 1,437 adults was conducted July 10-14, using a sample drawn from NORC's probability-based AmeriSpeak panel, which is designed to be representative of the U.S. population. The margin of sampling error for adults overall is plus or minus 3.6 percentage points. Peoples, Sanders and Yoo write for the Associated Press. Peoples reported from New York, Sanders and Yoo from Washington.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store