Experts question RFK Jr.'s suitability to lead U.S. Health department

WASHINGTON: President-elect Donald Trump has announced Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as his pick to lead the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), a decision that could significantly reshape public health policy in the U.S. The move follows Kennedy's endorsement of Trump during his presidential campaign and reflects a shared vision of challenging the current regulatory landscape in health, food, and pharmaceuticals​.
Kennedy, a known critic of vaccine safety protocols and corporate influence in regulatory agencies, aims to "clean up corruption" in HHS and prioritize transparency and evidence-based science. His "Make America Healthy Again" (MAHA) movement advocates for reducing corporate influence, banning certain pesticides and genetically modified organisms, and tightening regulations on food additives​.
This agenda aligns with Trump's commitment to "drain the swamp" and limit the power of large corporations in shaping public policy. However, Kennedy's controversial views on vaccines, including his claim that vaccine approval processes suffer from regulatory capture, are likely to provoke significant debate during his confirmation process​.
While some Republican lawmakers, such as Senator Ron Johnson, have expressed openness to Kennedy’s ideas, others remain cautious about his qualifications and controversial health stances. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries questioned Kennedy’s suitability for such a critical role, given the myriad health challenges facing the country​.
The appointment has also alarmed industries regulated by HHS, including pharmaceutical and agricultural sectors, which fear sweeping changes to established protocols. Lobbyists representing major food companies and farmers are already mobilizing efforts to counter Kennedy's proposed reforms​.
Kennedy’s leadership could disrupt current health practices, particularly in areas like vaccine development and food safety. Advocates see this as a long-overdue challenge to corporate influence, while critics argue it risks undermining established science and public trust in health systems. His tenure could also lead to heightened scrutiny of pharmaceutical companies, potentially altering drug approval processes and industry practices​.
This nomination sets the stage for contentious debates about the balance between innovation, safety, and corporate accountability in American health policy. It underscores Trump’s broader strategy to redefine governance and regulatory frameworks in his second term.