Public Health Experts Alarmed at Trump’s Pick of RFK Jr. to Lead HHS

President-elect Donald Trump’s nomination of Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a vaccine skeptic who spreads medical disinformation and conspiracy theories, to head the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) alarmed public health experts who say that Kennedy’s potential confirmation could have dire consequences for the state of health and science in America.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

“I can’t think of a darker day for public health and science itself than the election of Donald Trump and the nomination of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as secretary of health,” says Lawrence Gostin, director of Georgetown University’s O’Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law. 

“To say that RFK Jr. is unqualified is a considerable understatement,” he continues. “The minimum qualification for being the head of the Department of Health and Human Services is fidelity to science and scientific evidence, and he spent his entire career fomenting distrust in public health and undermining science at every step of the way.”

If confirmed by the Senate, Kennedy would have sway over health agencies like the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that fall under the purview of HHS. Kennedy, who endorsed Trump in the 2024 election after ending his own longshot presidential campaign as an independent, has promoted a plan to “Make America Healthy Again,” which includes goals like reversing “an epidemic of chronic disease,” banning certain food additives and chemicals, and cleaning up “toxic chemicals from our air, water, and soil.”

But Kennedy, 70, has faced blowback for spreading medical disinformation. He has falsely claimed that vaccines cause autism, which has been debunked by years of scientific research proving vaccines are safe and effective. He’s claimed that adding fluoride to the water supply—a safe and long-standing practice that protects oral health—is linked to IQ loss, bone cancer, and more, and has said he would stop the practice. He’s accused the FDA of “aggressive suppression” of raw milk; the FDA doesn’t order people not to drink raw milk, but cautions that raw milk can contain dangerous bacteria, including E. coli and listeria, which can lead to illnesses and even death (health authorities have also been advising the public to avoid drinking raw milk during the bird flu outbreak, since the virus can survive in it).

Read More: What Donald Trump’s Win Could Mean for Vaccines

Since the election, Kennedy has said that he and the Trump Administration wouldn’t take vaccines off the market, but public health experts are concerned that he would appoint officials in the FDA or CDC who share his debunked anti-vaccine views and could try to slow, restrict, or revoke vaccine approvals. Gostin says there are “guardrails” in place that would prevent Kennedy from passing extreme policies—for instance, the head of HHS wouldn’t have the power to ban vaccinations or vaccination mandates, since those public health powers are left up to state or local officials. If the FDA tried to withdraw approval of a vaccine without scientific justification, Gostin says he expects that that argument wouldn’t hold up in court.

Even so, Gostin says he believes Kennedy “could do enormous damage” when it comes to vaccine policy in the U.S. He worries that HHS could “cherry pick” data that casts doubt on the safety and effectiveness of vaccines, which could influence state and local officials and sow public distrust. Agencies like the FDA and CDC “set the scientific gold standard for public health recommendations,” and if they release false or misleading information, Gostin worries “it will poison the well of public opinion and nobody will know who to trust.” And that could lead to fewer people getting vaccinated and “an explosion” of vaccine-preventable diseases, such as measles, mumps, and rubella, Gostin says.

“You shouldn’t have somebody who’s a vaccine denier and science skeptic as head of the nation’s most venerable scientific agencies,” Gostin says. “He’s shown that, on a huge range of public health issues, he takes the position outside the scientific mainstream, that he peddles mis- and disinformation, and that he’s not to be trusted with the health and safety of Americans.”

Dr. Paul Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia who has served on CDC and FDA vaccine advisory committees, says he was “sickened” by the news of Kennedy being nominated for the position. He compares Kennedy being considered for the role to “having somebody who doesn’t believe in gravity being the head of NASA.” He criticizes Kennedy for previously indicating that he would deprioritize infectious diseases as a research focus at the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

“We are experiencing an H5N1 [bird flu] outbreak right now, and so if we remove infectious disease funding—then what? I’m trying to make it make sense,” says Katelyn Jetelina, an epidemiologist and founder of the newsletter Your Local Epidemiologist.

Kennedy will face an uphill battle to win Senate confirmation. But Offit says the nomination alone is a concerning representation of a lack of trust in science. Experts worry that Kennedy could continue to spread medical misinformation as the head of HHS—and that many people will believe it.

“There’s a good chance that falsehoods and rumors will be broadcast from the most powerful office in the nation, and I think this will drive confusion, anxiety, and questions that are going to have a direct negative impact on Americans who genuinely have good questions and are interested in making evidence-based health decisions,” Jetelina says. “My biggest concern is the disinformation that will be amplified—that is no longer on the fringes, but it will become mainstream.”

While many public health experts fear Kennedy’s stances on vaccines and infectious diseases, some are more optimistic about his positions on food and nutrition. On his website, Kennedy promises to “ban the hundreds of food additives and chemicals that other countries have already prohibited” and “change regulations, research topics, and subsidies to reduce the dominance of ultra-processed food.” Dr. Dariush Mozaffarian, a cardiologist and director of the Food Is Medicine Institute at Tufts University, says Kennedy’s focus on food and nutrition is “potentially very powerful to finally have some real, meaningful change in this country to address our national nutrition crisis.” While other experts acknowledge that food and nutrition do need reform, they cast doubt on whether Kennedy would do so effectively, and stress the threat that he would pose to other areas of health, including vaccines.

“I’m going to be hopeful and be optimistic and not pre-judge what RFK Jr. might do as a Cabinet secretary and head of a major agency based on what he’s done and said in the past,” Mozaffarian says. “I hope and assume he’s going to use the best science to move forward.”

Still, a day after Trump announced the nomination, most public health experts are dismayed about what Kennedy’s leadership at HHS could bring. “In short, he’s not going to use science, and he’s not going to do the hard work to make America healthy again,” Gostin says. “In fact, I think he’s going to make America ever more sick and distrustful of public health.”