Under Fire: HHS Secretary Kennedy Faces Scrutiny Over Public Health Cuts Amid Measles Outbreak

WASHINGTON – U.S. Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is facing increasing criticism and scrutiny from public health experts and officials as his administration implements sweeping budget cuts and policy changes within the department.These actions, undertaken in the name of tackling chronic disease, are coinciding with the largest measles outbreak in the United States since 2000, raising concerns about the nation’s ability to respond to infectious disease threats and maintain critical public health infrastructure.

Kennedy, who entered office vowing to address the country’s chronic disease epidemic and give infectious diseases a “break,” appears to be prioritizing the dismantling of structures built to combat COVID-19, sparking alarm among health professionals.

“If his goal is to undermine public health infrastructure, he’s making strides there,” said Dorit Reiss, a University of California Law school professor specializing in vaccine law. “If his goal is combating chronic diseases – he’s not doing very well.”

Deep Cuts and Shifting Priorities

Since Kennedy took office, HHS has undergone meaningful upheaval.In collaboration with Elon Musk’s unofficial “department of government efficiency (Doge),” the department has axed approximately 20,000 jobs – roughly 25% of its workforce, raising concerns of both effectiveness and safety across the division. A leaked budget memo indicates the administration intends to propose another $40 billion in cuts, approximately one‑third of the discretionary funds. This has raised both concerns and criticism among public health researchers.

The administration defends these cuts by saying the COVID-19 pandemic is over and those precious funds will be better spent elsewhere. “The Covid-19 pandemic is over, and HHS will no longer waste billions of taxpayer dollars responding to a non-existent pandemic that americans moved on from years ago,” an HHS spokesperson told Archyde.com in response to questions. The spokesperson added, “HHS is prioritizing funding projects that will deliver on President Trump’s mandate to address our chronic disease epidemic and Make America Healthy Again.”

Gregg Gonsalves, a Yale University associate professor and infectious disease epidemiologist, characterized this strategy as the “revenge of the Covid contrarians.”

“They’re not interested in the science, they’re interested in their conclusions and having the science bend to their will,” said Gonsalves. “They want to create a Potemkin village of their own making that looks like science but has nothing to do with science at all.”

COVID Pivot

The administration’s approach has included attacking promising vaccine platforms, delaying the approval of new COVID-19 vaccines, clawing back grants that supported local immunization efforts and vaccine safety studies, and elevating individuals critical of COVID-19 policies to influential positions.

Lori Tremmel Freeman, CEO of the National Association of County and City Health Officials (NACCHO), noted that her members were hearing from inside their organizations, “We can’t say covid, we’re not allowed to say Covid.” She added, “we kind of saw the writing on the wall a couple months ago that: ‘OK, they really don’t want anything Covid-related to be pursued any more.’ Everything Covid-related is quite honestly at risk.”

Kennedy recently signaled his intention to remove COVID-19 shots from the childhood vaccine schedule,a move that could limit insurance coverage and make the vaccines more arduous to access. “The recommendation for children was always dubious,” Kennedy told Fox News. While only a minority of children are vaccinated against COVID-19, the CDC recommends it, especially for immunocompromised children.Local Funding Impact

Freeman believes the move to erase the COVID-19 legacy prompted HHS to reclaim $11 billion in public health funds from states and localities.Implemented with little notice, local officials had mere hours to lay off staff, cancel immunization clinics, and halt construction projects.“That’s why we feel like the drawback of the funding occurred: Covid,” said Freeman.

According to HHS, these cancellations were mostly for COVID-19-related work and were considered a cost-saving measure.

The consequences of the cuts are already being felt across the country. For example, more than 50 measles immunization clinics were canceled in Texas, where an outbreak has claimed the lives of two unvaccinated children. Pilot programs like “Text4Vax,” which sent reminders about pediatric vaccines to parents, were also discontinued.

Vaccine Approval Delays

HHS has also delayed the approval of the Novavax COVID-19 vaccine, reportedly under the influence of a Kennedy political appointee. Novavax confirmed its application remained on hold and would have “no further comments.” The FDA’s process is supposed to be independent.

Reiss expressed concern about the future of vaccine growth, stating, “I don’t think any vaccine that’s in the pipeline is going to go forward under Kennedy” or that “he will let any vaccine go far now.”

recent data from the CDC shows a slight uptick in vaccine hesitancy among certain demographics, particularly in rural areas. Experts fear that the current administration’s actions could exacerbate this trend, leading to lower vaccination rates and increased vulnerability to preventable diseases.

A Counterargument

While concerns about the cuts are prevalent,some argue that a shift in focus towards chronic diseases is a necessary step to improve long-term public health outcomes. Advocates for this approach say that prioritizing chronic diseases,such as diabetes and heart disease,which account for a substantial portion of healthcare costs and mortality,will ultimately lead to a healthier population.

Still, some of Kennedy’s most ardent supporters and reported informal advisers, such as the former cardiologist Peter McCullough, have argued these actions don’t go far enough. “The big threat is that we still have Covid-19 vaccines on the market,” McCullough told KFF Health News. “It’s horrendous. I would not hesitate – I would just pull it. What’s he waiting for?”

Future uncertain

Experts worry that the changes could weaken the nation’s ability to respond to future health crises. James Hodge, a professor of law at Arizona State University and a health law expert, said “Dismantling the sort of vaccine infrastructure this country relies upon – that’s been in place for several dozens and dozens of years – only impacts the chronic disease front he’s trying to ameliorate as well. Acquiring infectious diseases leads to chronic conditions later.”

As the measles outbreak continues and concerns about other infectious diseases mount, the debate over Kennedy’s policies and their impact on public health is likely to intensify.

FAQ: HHS changes and Public health

Q: Why is the HHS making these cuts?

A: According to an HHS spokesperson, “The Covid-19 pandemic is over, and HHS will no longer waste billions of taxpayer dollars responding to a non-existent pandemic that Americans moved on from years ago. HHS is prioritizing funding projects that will deliver on President Trump’s mandate to address our chronic disease epidemic and Make America Healthy Again.”

Q: What are the consequences of the HHS cuts?

A: Consequences include staff layoffs, cancellation of immunization clinics (e.g., measles in Texas), delays in vaccine approvals, and the elimination of programs aimed at reducing COVID-19’s impact on vulnerable populations.

Q: Are vaccines still safe and effective?

A: Yes.Vaccines are one of the most effective tools to protect public health. Decades of research proves that vaccines prevent serious illness and disease. In the case of COVID-19, the CDC continues to recommend vaccination, especially for immunocompromised children.

Archyde Interview: Dr. Eleanor vance on HHS Cuts and the Measles outbreak

Archyde.com – With the U.S. facing its largest measles outbreak in two decades, and amidst sweeping budget cuts at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Archyde News Editor sat down with Dr. Eleanor Vance, a leading infectious disease epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins university. We discussed the potential ramifications of the HHS’s shift in priorities and the implications for public health.

Interview

Archyde: Dr. Vance, thank you for joining us. The current situation at HHS, with budget cuts and a focus away from infectious diseases, is concerning many. What are the most immediate threats you see stemming from thes changes?

Dr.Vance: Thank you for having me. The most immediate threat is a weakened public health infrastructure. Cutting staff, canceling immunization programs − that’s a direct hit to our ability to respond to outbreaks, as we’re seeing with measles right now. When we dismantle what’s been built over years and years to combat preventable diseases,we inevitably open the doors to more chronic conditions and other outbreaks.

Archyde: The administration has justified these cuts by saying the COVID-19 pandemic is over. Do you think this is a valid reasoning, given the longer-term implications?

Dr. Vance: the pandemic may be in a different phase, but ignoring the lessons learned and dismantling the infrastructure built to respond just seems short-sighted. We shoudl be prepared for future outbreaks, not weakening our defenses. it would be like dismantling the fire department because the current fire has been put out, when the fire hazard still exists.

Archyde: The article highlights the measles outbreak in Texas. Are these cuts playing a role in its spread?

Dr. Vance: Absolutely. When you cancel immunization clinics and limit access to vaccines, you create opportunities for diseases like measles to spread. Vaccination is one of the most effective public health tools we have, and restricting access to those tools will inevitably harm both the public and create the chronic conditions frequently enough targeted by this HHS push.

Archyde: There’s also the reported delay in the approval of the Novavax COVID-19 vaccine. What impact could these delays have on the larger vaccine landscape?

Dr. Vance: Any delays send a negative message to the American population, perhaps creating a climate of fear, doubt and hesitancy. The approval process needs to remain science-based and autonomous from political pressures. Delays can also impact future vaccine progress by discouraging investment and innovation within the biotechnology sector.

Archyde: Some argue that shifting focus to chronic diseases is a necessary step.What’s your take on this?

Dr. vance: Addressing chronic diseases is crucial, but these priorities shouldn’t be mutually exclusive. You can focus on chronic diseases and still maintain a robust infrastructure to respond to infectious disease threats.If anything, responding to and preventing infectious diseases frequently enough improves the conditions of and reduces the burden of other chronic conditions. You cannot cut funding to core public health functions and expect everything to run smoothly.

Archyde: The HHS also appears to be reallocating funds reclaimed from local and state projects. Can you comment on the consequences of these actions?

Dr. Vance: It creates confusion and chaos at the local level. Local public health departments are on the front lines of any outbreak. Starving them of resources, especially without notice, is incredibly damaging. They often have to cut key staff as well as critical programs to keep the mission moving. Now, just in the middle of an outbreak, they are trying to readjust, with fewer staff or resources. The short-term effect is less capacity to deal with what is present,while the long-term effect is weakening thier ability to respond quickly to future crises.

Archyde: Looking ahead, what are the most critical steps that need to be taken to address these challenges?

Dr. Vance: First the administration needs to listen to the experts. They’ve got to acknowledge the need to invest in and support public health infrastructure – that includes providing funding for those measures and ensuring a streamlined system that gets resources and solutions to those who need them. Second,we must work to restore public trust in vaccines and communicate the science clearly and consistently. Third, we have to anticipate, not react. The country’s infrastructure should create a system that is prepared for any future outbreak, regardless of the scope or characteristics.

Archyde: Dr. Vance, thank you for your insights.

We invite our readers to share their thoughts: Do you believe shifting HHS priorities is the right move, or do you share the concerns of Dr. Vance and other public health experts? Leave your comments below.