Public health experts are expressing alarm over President-elect Trump’s intention to allow Robert F. Kennedy Jr. influence on health policy, concerned this could lead to interference with key agencies, an increase in vaccine skepticism, and shifts in funding toward Kennedy’s controversial views.
Kennedy’s positions include advocating for the removal of fluoride from drinking water, endorsing a variety of unproven treatments, and showing strong distrust toward pharmaceutical companies and regulatory bodies.
Kennedy’s views on fluoride, alternative treatments, and pharma add uncertainty to the direction of U.S. health agencies
With Trump’s election win, Kennedy may soon be overseeing some of these agencies. Shortly before the election, Kennedy posted on social media that the “FDA’s war on public health is about to end,” referencing his dissatisfaction with the Food and Drug Administration’s restrictions on certain alternative therapies.
Early Wednesday, Trump claimed his win and the Republican support represented an “unprecedented mandate” from the American people. This shift could bring sweeping changes to health policy, especially under Kennedy’s influence.
Though Kennedy and Trump have yet to clarify his specific role, both agriculture and vaccine policy have been mentioned by advisers, leaving ambiguity about whether he might be appointed to a prominent role like Secretary of Health and Human Services.
Kennedy stated in interviews with NPR and NBC on Wednesday that he wouldn’t stop people from getting vaccines, yet he maintained his stance that health agencies have not conducted enough vaccine safety studies. “Our goal is to ensure Americans receive accurate information,” he explained, stressing the need for additional research to allow for informed decisions on vaccinations for individuals and their families.
Vaccines have a long history of protecting public health, with decades of research supporting their safety and effectiveness against serious diseases like measles and polio. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) relies on clinical studies and vast real-world data to validate vaccine efficacy.
Experts point to institutional checks within federal agencies that could prevent drastic changes, such as removing vaccines from the market, and expect that courts, industry, and Congress could push back on extreme shifts in policy. Nevertheless, they worry about Kennedy’s potential influence.
“I’m deeply concerned about the future of public health, environmental protections, and scientific standards in the coming years,” commented Lawrence Gostin, a professor specializing in global health law at Georgetown University.
Speaking at Mar-a-Lago with Kennedy in attendance, Trump vowed to let Kennedy “help make America healthy again” and assured that Kennedy would be given the freedom to act.
Once a presidential candidate himself, Kennedy has criticized federal health regulators, labeling them as “sock puppets” controlled by corporate interests. He outlined his mandate from Trump as one aimed at addressing corruption and conflicts of interest, working to restore regulatory agencies to a standard of “empirically based, evidence-based science and medicine,” and making a measurable impact on chronic disease within two years.
Both parties show interest in reducing reliance on ultra-processed foods and artificial trans fats, but there’s skepticism about Kennedy’s ability to remain strictly focused on nutritional issues. As the founder of a major antivaccine organization and a proponent of the debunked theory linking vaccines to autism, Kennedy’s commitment to scientific rigor is questioned. “RFK Jr. doesn’t have a reliable record with science,” said Gostin, adding that bipartisan efforts to improve the food supply might only succeed if Kennedy proves his commitment.
Kennedy has also vowed to overhaul the FDA, claiming it’s necessary to root out corruption within the agency.
While altering the vaccine approval process entirely may be unlikely, Kennedy could still influence decisions by appointing Trump supporters and vaccine skeptics to the CDC’s key vaccine advisory panel.
The panel’s members, approved by the HHS secretary, offer recommendations that guide vaccine policies. Though these recommendations are not binding, they influence insurance coverage.
A Kennedy-led HHS might also divert agency funds toward antivaccine research or away from programs he disapproves of. While Congress controls funding, agency leaders decide how to allocate resources. Saskia Popescu, an infectious disease expert at the University of Maryland, voiced her concerns, warning of potential funding constraints that might only support Kennedy’s views.
Even without directly shaping vaccine policy, Kennedy could impact public sentiment with his influential position and platform for vaccine skepticism. “Kennedy’s rhetoric could create confusion and distrust around vaccine approval,” said Georges Benjamin, head of the American Public Health Association, noting that Kennedy’s affiliations with groups that spread vaccine misinformation could amplify his statements and fuel controversies.
Although the federal government can only recommend, not mandate, vaccines, state and local governments implement these policies. Chrissie Juliano, director of the Big Cities Health Coalition, observed that states with more progressive policies stepped in during Trump’s previous administration to protect public health.
Still, a CDC resistant to vaccines could influence public health recommendations. “A shift or reduction in CDC recommendations on vaccines could impact states, schools, and parents, and we’re already seeing the effects of that,” said Kates.
