logo
The fight over fluoridation

The fight over fluoridation

Politico10-07-2025
With help from Lauren Gardner
Driving the Day
FLUORIDE'S LAST STAND? Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. looks poised to win the battle over fluoride, to the dismay of dentists and oral health advocates, POLITICO's Danny Nguyen reports.
Florida and Utah banned the cavity-fighting mineral from their drinking water this year, and several other Republican-led states are considering similar measures. Oklahoma has dropped its recommendation that localities fluoridate.
Why it matters: The nearly three-quarters of Americans who drank fluoridated water before Kennedy became HHS secretary is set to plummet.
For Kennedy, who's long believed drinking fluoride is unhealthy, that's a win.
'Fluoride's predominant benefit to teeth comes from topical contact with the outside of the teeth, not from ingestion,' an HHS spokesperson told POLITICO. 'There is no need, therefore, to ingest fluoride.'
The impact of the retreat from fluoridation on oral health will reveal whether dentists are correct when they predict a cavity crisis will follow, or whether Kennedy's view that Americans can get the fluoride they need through toothpaste and mouthwash will bear out.
Drilling down: The CDC has included fluoridation in its list of the 10 greatest public health achievements of the 20th century, citing data that it reduces tooth decay by as much as 70 percent in children and tooth loss by as much as 60 percent in adults.
Kennedy nonetheless believes the case to remove fluoride is urgent because of reports that it could curtail children's brain development. It's a position bolstered by a report from the National Institutes of Environmental Health Sciences — although none of the studies were conducted in the U.S., and the levels of fluoride they examined were higher than what Americans typically consume — and a federal judge's order in September that the Environmental Protection Agency regulate fluoride in drinking water, citing risks that higher levels could impact intellectual development.
Dentists see it differently.
'This is revving up an antiscience narrative,' said Dr. Brett Kessler, the president of the American Dental Association, the country's leading dentists' group. 'There are ways to get fluoride in toothpaste, some of the foods we eat, some of the drinks we drink, topical fluoride mouthwashes. … But without fluoridated water, you're already behind the eight ball because you've got vulnerable teeth.'
WELCOME TO THURSDAY PULSE. Former President Joe Biden's doctor declined to answer questions today about Biden's health during the presidency in a GOP House probe, citing patient confidentiality and the Fifth Amendment. Send your tips, scoops and feedback to khooper@politico.com and sgardner@politico.com, and follow along @kelhoops and @sophie_gardnerj.
AROUND THE AGENCIES
THE SCOTUS ORDER FALLOUT — HHS employees are bracing for the Trump administration to move forward with mass firings after a Tuesday order from the Supreme Court cleared the way, POLITICO's Erin Schumaker reports.
The set-to-be-terminated employees' final hope rests on the ruling's suggestion that lower courts could still consider direct challenges to agencies' reorganization plans. But that will require plaintiffs to bring more detailed cases quickly and convince judges to stop the layoffs before they become a fait accompli. As cases become more granular, plaintiffs will likely face an uphill battle.
The White House said it plans to restart the terminations immediately.
Federal workers, who have long seen civil service laws and collective bargaining agreements as shields protecting their jobs, told POLITICO their world has been shaken.
'All of my friends are resigned to the worst,' said a National Institutes of Health staffer who was granted anonymity due to fear of retribution.
On Wednesday, federal workers remained in wait-and-see mode, uncertain and awaiting word from agency lawyers on how to interpret the ruling's implications for them. Staffers at HHS described feeling anxious and exhausted by the back-and-forth over their jobs.
'Fuck it,' another NIH staffer said. 'I'm ready to retire if I can.'
Key context: A number of more limited challenges to the layoffs remain viable, said attorney Max Stier, founding president and CEO of the Partnership for Public Service, a nonprofit group that aims to improve the way the government functions.
'[The order] shouldn't, in and of itself, resolve those other cases,' he said.
The administration, for example, faces other legal challenges over its restructuring of HHS, which saw a quarter of its workforce bought out or let go, although hundreds of those workers have since been reinstated.
'HHS previously announced our plans to transform this Department to Make America Healthy Again and we intend to do just that,' HHS spokesperson Andrew Nixon wrote in a text Wednesday.
At the Courts
DOJ TARGETS TRANS CARE — President Donald Trump's Justice Department intensified its campaign against gender-affirming medical care Wednesday, issuing subpoenas to at least 20 doctors and clinics that treat transgender minors, POLITICO's Simon Levien reports.
The DOJ's announcement coincided with a Federal Trade Commission hearing where opponents of gender transition-related medical care accused providers of not being truthful about the consequences of the treatments, such as counseling, hormone replacement therapy and surgery.
Chad Mizelle, DOJ chief of staff, said the providers 'perpetrated one of the greatest medical frauds.'
The DOJ didn't name the clinics but said it's also investigating false statements.
'Medical professionals and organizations that mutilated children in the service of a warped ideology will be held accountable by this Department of Justice,' said Attorney General Pam Bondi in a press release.
Why it matters: Trump has long assailed gender-affirming care for children, making his opposition to it a keystone of his 2024 campaign. HHS issued a report in May arguing there was little evidence to show the care is effective and 'a growing body of evidence pointing to significant risks.'
But most major U.S. medical organizations say the treatments are safe, can boost patients' quality of life and save children's lives.
The subpoenas are the administration's latest attempt to crack down on the small number of health care clinics that provide gender-affirming care to minors. Most states already restrict or ban the practice for children.
What's next: FTC Commissioner Melissa Holyoak said her agency would scrutinize how providers describe gender-affirming care when consulting patients.
In Congress
FIRST IN PULSE: BIPARTISAN PBM BILL — Rep. Buddy Carter, a GOP pharmacist running for a Georgia Senate seat, will introduce legislation today with 11 bipartisan colleagues that would overhaul the practices of the drug-price middlemen known as pharmacy benefit managers — an industry that's become a perennial congressional target, Lauren reports.
The bill incorporates proposals — including two dropped from the recently passed Republican megabill — addressing a range of issues that PBM critics say contribute to high health care costs and low reimbursement rates for independent pharmacies.
The package would resurrect a ban on spread-pricing in Medicaid and a survey requirement for retail pharmacies to report their drug-acquisition costs — provisions dropped from the reconciliation bill after the Senate parliamentarian ruled the Medicaid language would be subject to the 60-vote Byrd rule point of order. It also would aim to limit pharmacy steering of Medicare Part D beneficiaries and delink PBM compensation from drug costs.
'It's time to bust up the PBM monopoly, which has been stealing hope and health from patients for decades,' Carter said in a statement. 'As a pharmacist, I've seen how PBMs abuse patients firsthand, and believe that the cure to this infectious disease is transparency, competition, and accountability, which is exactly what our bipartisan package provides.'
Original co-sponsors include Reps. Rick Allen (R-Ga.), Jodey Arrington (R-Texas), Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.), Vicente Gonzalez (D-Texas), Diana Harshbarger (R-Tenn.), Raha Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.), Nicole Malliotakis (R-N.Y.), Greg Murphy (R-N.C.), John Rose (R-Tenn.), Deborah Ross (D-N.C.) and Derek Tran (D-Calif.).
GLOBAL HEALTH CUT CONCERNS — Some Republican senators expressed concerns about slashing funding for global health at their weekly lunch Wednesday, arguing that the White House's request to claw back $9.4 billion in congressionally approved funding should be tweaked.
Those concerns included the impact of slashing global AIDS funding and other international health funds, POLITICO's Jordain Carney reports. Republicans also sought clarity in the meeting about proposed reductions to food aid to other countries.
The pushback is the latest sign Republicans will have to make changes to the administration's rescissions package if they hope to pass it.
'Just by listening to the conversations — one, members still need to understand it better,' Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.) said in a brief interview after the closed-door Republican lunch. He added, 'I think we will get it passed, but in all likelihood it will be modified.'
Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) said, 'I just heard a lot of concerns raised in this meeting just now. People have a lot of stuff they want changed.'
What's next: Congress has until the end of the day on July 18 to get the legislation to President Donald Trump's desk or the rescissions request expires, forcing the administration to spend the money as Congress originally intended. And assuming the Senate does make changes, it would bounce the legislation back to the House for a final vote. Senate leaders are gambling that their counterparts across the Capitol will just swallow those revisions.
WHAT WE'RE READING
The New York Times' Joseph Goldstein reports that 1.5 million New Yorkers could lose health insurance under the One Big, Beautiful Bill Act.
STAT's Katie Palmer reports on the challenges health systems face when trying to implement AI tools.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Kennedy considering firing members of preventive services task force
Kennedy considering firing members of preventive services task force

NBC News

time5 minutes ago

  • NBC News

Kennedy considering firing members of preventive services task force

Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is considering removing all 16 members of a highly influential advisory committee that offers guidance about preventive health services, such as cancer screenings, HIV prevention medications or tests for osteoporosis, according to two people familiar with the plan. The United States Preventive Services Task Force is a group of independent doctors, nurses and public health experts who volunteer to regularly review volumes of the latest scientific research about diseases, such as diabetes, obesity, heart disease and mental health, as well as mammograms for breast cancer. Health and Human Services' spokesperson Andrew Nixon said in an emailed statement Friday that 'no final decision has been made on how the USPSTF can better support HHS' mandate to Make America Healthy Again.' Earlier this month, Kennedy caused alarm among task force members after he abruptly postponed a scheduled meeting that was set to focus on heart disease and prevention. At the time, task force members weren't given a reason for the cancellation or whether the meeting would be rescheduled. Kennedy's plans were first reported Friday by The Wall Street Journal. The task force plays an important role in protecting access to screenings and tests because the Affordable Care Act, more commonly known as Obamacare, mandates that most private insurers provide the services that the group recommends to patients at no cost. The task force makes its recommendations using a grading scale. Under federal law, services that get an A or B grade but must be covered by insurance plans at no cost for patients. The advisory group has come under fire from conservative groups for some past decisions, including its 'A' recommendation to cover the HIV prevention pill, known as PrEP. The advisory group has come under fire from conservative groups for some past decisions, including its 'A' recommendation to cover the HIV prevention pill, known as PrEP. That recommendation led to a lawsuit from several Christian employers that ended up before the Supreme Court, where the justices decided 6-3 to uphold the Affordable Care Act provision that requires insurers to cover task force-recommended preventive services for free. However, the court agreed with the Trump administration that Kennedy has final say over decisions made by members of the task force because HHS has oversight over the group. As health secretary, he also has the authority to remove and replace members. Kennedy has made children's chronic disease a keystone of his position as the country's top health official. It's unclear which areas of health care Kennedy might target by shaking up the panel. In June, Kennedy fired all 17 members of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices — which makes recommendations to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention about vaccines, including for children — and replaced them with eight new members. The new panel includes well-known vaccine critics.

US and Mexico sign deal to stop sewage release into Tijuana River
US and Mexico sign deal to stop sewage release into Tijuana River

Boston Globe

time34 minutes ago

  • Boston Globe

US and Mexico sign deal to stop sewage release into Tijuana River

Lee Zeldin, the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, who traveled to Mexico to sign the memorandum of understanding with Alicia Bárcena Ibarra, Mexico's environment secretary, wrote in a statement that the countries are aiming for a 'permanent, 100% solution.' Under the deal, Mexico agreed to complete an allocation of $93 million toward sanitation infrastructure, and complete all projects by Dec. 31, 2027, the EPA said. The United States, which had withheld funds for water infrastructure improvements on the border, will release money to complete the rehabilitation of a pump station and other projects. Advertisement 'The Trump administration is proud to deliver this massive environmental and national security win for Americans in the San Diego area who have been living with this disgusting raw sewage flowing into their communities for far too long,' Zeldin said in a statement. Advertisement Bárcena Ibarra said in a statement the agreement 'strengthens collaboration to address environmental and health challenges along the northern border.' San Diego County residents have suffered acutely. The Office of the Naval Inspector General this year found that more than 1,100 Navy recruits contracted gastrointestinal illnesses after training in southern San Diego waters. And nearly half of the 40,900 households in the region have experienced health problems, including rashes and shortness of breath, that were most likely attributable to the sewage, according to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The agreement comes three months after Zeldin visited San Diego to begin negotiations with Mexico. It drew praise from local officials, including from Democrats, but some environmental advocates said more needs to be done. Jim Desmond, a Republican supervisor of the San Diego County Board of Supervisors, wrote on the social platform X that the announcement 'marks a significant step forward.' He said the federal government had previously failed to hold Mexico accountable for the sewage flowing into California. 'Our beaches must be clean, safe, and open year-round — anything less is unacceptable,' he wrote. Todd Gloria, the mayor of San Diego and a Democrat, thanked Zeldin on X and called the deal 'a huge step toward ending this crisis.' Matthew Tejada, senior vice president of environmental health for the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental group, called the agreement a good start. 'It's great that we're starting to roll up our sleeves' on this issue, he said. But he added that the waste-water improvements are enormous and complicated infrastructure projects that are likely going to be hit with unexpected problems, including worsening levels of runoff and sewage exacerbated by climate-fueled storms. 'These are really tough projects to implement, with really elusive outcomes,' he said. Advertisement This article originally appeared in

Criminalization or support? President Trump's executive order on homelessness gets mixed reaction
Criminalization or support? President Trump's executive order on homelessness gets mixed reaction

Los Angeles Times

time2 hours ago

  • Los Angeles Times

Criminalization or support? President Trump's executive order on homelessness gets mixed reaction

An executive order signed by President Trump purporting to protect Americans from 'endemic vagrancy, disorderly behavior, sudden confrontations, and violent attacks' attributed to homelessness has left local officials and homeless advocates outraged over its harsh tone while also grasping for a hopeful message in its fine print. The order Trump signed Thursday would require federal agencies to reverse precedents or consent decrees that impede U.S. policy 'encouraging civil commitment of individuals with mental illness who pose risks to themselves or the public or are living on the streets and cannot care for themselves.' It ordered those agencies to 'ensure the availability of funds to support encampment removal efforts.' Depending on how that edict is carried out, it could extend a lifeline for Mayor Karen Bass' Inside Safe program, which has eliminated dozens of the city's most notable encampments but faces budget challenges to maintain the hotel and motel beds that allow people to move indoors. Responding to the order Friday, Bass said she was troubled that it called for ending street homelessness and moving people into rehabilitation facilities at the same time as the administration's cuts to Medicaid have affected funding 'streams for facilities for people to stay in, especially people who are disabled.' 'Of course I'm concerned about any punitive measures,' Bass said. 'But first and foremost, if you want to end street homelessness, then you have got to have housing and services for people who are on the street.' Kevin Murray, president and chief executive of the Weingart Center homeless services and housing agency, saw ambiguity in the language. 'I couldn't tell whether he is offering money for people who want to do it his way or taking money away from people who don't do it his way,' Murray said. Others took their cue from the order's provocative tone set in a preamble declaring that the overwhelming majority of the 274,224 people reported living on the street in 2024 'are addicted to drugs, have a mental health condition, or both.' The order contradicted a growing body of research finding that substance use and mental illness, while significant, are not overriding factors in homelessness. 'Nearly two-thirds of homeless individuals report having regularly used hard drugs like methamphetamines, cocaine, or opioids in their lifetimes. An equally large share of homeless individuals reported suffering from mental health conditions.' A February study by the Benioff Homeless and Housing Initiative at UC San Francisco found that only about 37% of more than 3,000 homeless people surveyed in California were using illicit drugs regularly, but just over 65% reported having regularly used at some point in their lives. More than a third said their drug use had decreased after they became homeless and one in five interviewed in depth said they were seeking treatment but couldn't get it. 'As with most executive orders, it doesn't have much effect on its own,' said Steve Berg, chief policy officer for the National Alliance to End Homelessness. 'It tells the federal agencies to do different things. Depending on how the federal agencies do those things, that's what will have the impact.' In concrete terms, the order seeks to divert funding from two pillars of mainstream homelessness practice, 'housing first,' the prioritization of permanent housing over temporary shelter, and 'harm reduction,' the rejection of abstinence as a condition of receiving services and housing. According to the order, grants issued under the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration should 'not fund programs that fail to achieve adequate outcomes, including so-called 'harm reduction' or 'safe consumption' efforts that only facilitate illegal drug use and its attendant harm.' And the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development should, to the extent permitted by law, end support for 'housing first' policies that 'deprioritize accountability and fail to promote treatment, recovery, and self-sufficiency.' To some extent, those themes reflect shifts that have been underway in the state and local response to homelessness. Under pressure from Gov. Gavin Newsom, the California legislature established rules allowing relatives and service providers to refer people to court for treatment and expanded the definition of gravely disabled to include substance use. Locally, Bass' Inside Safe program and the county's counterpart, Pathway Home, have prioritized expanding interim housing to get people off the streets immediately. Trump's order goes farther, though, wading into the controversial issue of how much coercion is justified in eliminating encampments. The Attorney General and the other federal agencies, it said, should take steps to ensure that grants go to states and cities that enforce prohibitions on open illicit drug use, urban camping and loitering and squatting. Homeless advocacy organizations saw those edicts as a push for criminalization of homelessness and mental illness. 'We'll be back to the days of 'One Flew Over the Cuckcoo's Nest,' 'Berg said, referring to the 1962 novel and subsequent movie dramatizing oppressive conditions in mental health institutions. Defending Housing First as a proven strategy that is the most cost-effective way to get people off the street, Berg said the order encourages agencies to use the money in less cost-effective ways. 'What we want to do is reduce homelessness,' he said. 'I'm not sure that is the goal of the Trump administration.' The National Homelessness Law Center said in a statement saying, 'This Executive Order is rooted in outdated, racist myths about homelessness and will undoubtedly make homelessness worse.... Trump's actions will force more people into homelessness, divert taxpayer money away from people in need, and make it harder for local communities to solve homelessness.' Murray, who describes himself as not a fan of Housing First, noted that key policies pressed in the order—civil commitment, encampment removal and substance use treatment—are already gaining prominence in the state and local response to homelessness. 'We all think if it came from Trump it is horrible,' Murray said. 'It is certainly overbearing. It certainly misses some nuances of what real people with mental illness and substance use are like. But we've started down the path of most of this stuff.' His main concern was that the order might be interpreted to apply to Section 8, the primary federal financial tool for getting homeless people into housing. What would happen, he asked, if someone with a voucher refused treatment? 'It might encourage more people to stay on the streets,' he said. 'Getting people into treatment isn't easy.'

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