From “brilliant” to “aghast” – President-elect Donald J. Trump’s nomination on Thursday of Robert F. Kennedy Jr., founder of Children’s Health Defense (CHD), to run the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) triggered a range of reactions among media outlets, public health officials, and Kennedy’s long-time supporters and detractors.
In a statement posted on Truth Social and X, Trump said Kennedy would restore the public health agencies “to the traditions of Gold Standard Scientific Research, and beacons of Transparency, to end the Chronic Disease epidemic, and to Make America Great and Healthy Again!”
Kennedy, who promised to fight corruption and end the revolving door between industry and government, thanked Trump for the nomination on social media. He said he would “free the agencies from the smothering cloud of corporate capture so they can pursue their mission to make Americans once again the healthiest people on Earth.”
If confirmed, Kennedy would hold the most powerful governmental position in public health, overseeing 80,000 employees across a department that houses 13 agencies and more than 100 programs. Those agencies include the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the National Institutes of Health and the Center for Medicaid and Medicare Services.
CHD CEO Mary Holland told The Defender the organization “could not be more pleased” with the nomination, adding:
Kennedy has been devoted to ending the childhood chronic health epidemic for almost 20 years. He has been effective in communicating the failures of our existing public health establishment.
Based on his extensive litigation history, he is uniquely prepared to reform the regulatory institutions, the research institutions, and public education on health. I look forward to seeing dramatic, measurable improvements in Americans’ health during the Trump administration.
Cardiologist Dr. Peter McCullough told Fox News that Kennedy would be “such a contrast” to previous public health leadership. He said Kennedy would focus on data transparency and accountability. “I think we’re going to see a total overhaul of healthcare administration.”
“I hope he leans into personal choice on vaccines rather than bans (which I think are terrible, just like mandates) but what I’m most optimistic about is taking on big pharma and the corporate ag oligopoly to improve our health,” he added.
Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) told Fox News, “I think Robert is another disruptor. We need a disruptor. I will be glad and I’m looking forward to working with him,” Politico reported.
Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) called Kennedy a “brilliant, courageous truth-teller” and said he could make the “most significant impact on health.”
Vaccine stocks take a dive on news of announcement
On the flip side, some lawmakers and public health leaders expressed alarm, decrying the nomination.
U.S. Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.) called the choice “f— insane” on X, Fox News reported. “He’s a vaccine denier and a tin foil hat conspiracy theorist. He will destroy our public health infrastructure and our vaccine distribution systems. This is going to cost lives.”
Dr. Richard E. Besser, CEO of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and a former acting director of the CDC, said that having Kennedy head up HHS “would pose incredible risks to the health of the nation,” because Kennedy’s critique of the public health agencies was worsening the mistrust lingering after the coronavirus pandemic, The New York Times reported.
Besser told CNN that some of Kennedy’s ideas about chronic health issues regarding children were good ideas, but other ideas were deeply concerning – particularly Kennedy’s proposal that individuals should decide for themselves whether to take a vaccine.
“The idea that receiving childhood vaccines would be a parental choice scares me,” he said.
Current CDC Director Mandy Cohen raised concerns that Kennedy would use the position to spread misinformation and foster distrust in public health institutions, particularly with respect to vaccines.
He has been a long-term advocate for the tens of thousands of families seeking compensation for their children’s vaccine-induced autism.
Kennedy also promised that, if confirmed, he would make the V-safevaccine injury data collected but not made public by the CDC transparent, so scientists have access to the data necessary to analyze vaccine safety
Vaccine and Pharma stocks fell sharply this morning, following yesterday’s announcement about Kennedy, Reuters reported.
Bavarian Nordic, which makes the mpox vaccine, was down 16 percent. Its CEO told Reuters he was concerned that Kennedy could fuel vaccine skepticism.
However, he also said that the U.S. response to the COVID-19 pandemic under Trump’s first term made him confident that the incoming administration would continue to fund biodefense.
The Trump administration launched and oversaw Operation Warp Speed, the public-private partnership to rapidly develop a COVID-19 vaccine that gave vaccine makers hundreds of billions in profits along with total immunity for any harms caused by those investigational vaccines under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act.
Kennedy will be ‘single greatest threat to profits in America’
Republican advisers have cautioned that Kennedy could face a difficult path to confirmation, The Washington Post reported, citing his “past statements on drugs and vaccines, and his many personal entanglements.” FiercePharma said his confirmation process is likely “to be contentious.”
Physician, professor and Substacker Dr. Vinay Prasad wrote that Trump could use a recess appointment to secure Kennedy’s position, but that he will likely need to be confirmed by the Senate where “He has a several hundred billion dollar industry that will do everything possible to stop him.”
“Many of these companies have lobbied throughout Congress,” Prasad added. “They will use those connections. Unlike other controversial appointees, RFK Jr. will be the single greatest threat to profits in America.”
If his appointment goes through, Prasad said Kennedy will face a difficult road in getting his proposed policies enacted, given the entrenched power of Pharma and the power of the media that opposes him.
Law professor Wendy Parmet, director of Northeastern University’s Center for Health Policy and Law, pointed to the potential clash between Kennedy’s anti-industry position and the big-business leanings of the Republican Party.
“We have an administration that promises to deregulate, to be business-friendly, and then we have RFK Jr., who promises to go after fast food,” Parmet told The Washington Post.
Health and health freedom advocates optimistic Kennedy will bring change
Despite the challenges ahead, health advocates are optimistic that changes they have been seeking for decades will come to pass.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, critics of pandemic policies were condemned and marginalized. Kennedy was censored by the Biden administration and social media companies as part of the so-called “Disinformation Dozen” for airing many of those critiques.
Over the course of the election Kennedy – who ran for president as a Democrat, then announced he was running as an independent before suspending his campaign and endorsing Trump – has repeatedly been called a “conspiracy theorist.” Both Kennedy and CHD are routinely dismissed as “anti-vax” for openly discussing the scientific evidence on the link between vaccines and chronic diseases including autism, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder or ADHD and other neuropsychiatric and autoimmune disorders, in some children.
Rather than investigating the science, mainstream media mostly insists these links have been “debunked,” without providing any evidence for their claim.
His supporters hope these issues will now receive serious public attention that will lead to policy change.
Holland said on X that Kennedy’s nomination came 38 years to the day after the Vaccine Injury Act that gave vaccine manufacturers immunity from liability was signed into law.
Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.
As noted by the Trudeau government, plastic substitutes contribute to lower air quality and “typically have higher climate change impacts” due to higher GHG emissions.
Recently at the White House, President Donald Trump signed an executive order reversing the Biden administration’s plan to phase out plastic straws. The Trudeau government, however, continues with its plan to ban single-use plastics, even though this prohibition will have minimal impact worldwide, will actually increase waste in Canada, and force a transition to alternatives that impose greater environmental harm. Rather than doubling down on a flawed policy, the next federal government should reverse Trudeau’s plastic ban.
In 2021, the Trudeau government classified plastic items as “toxic,” paving the way for the ban on the manufacturing, importing and selling of checkout bags, cutlery, stir sticks and straws—all single-use plastics. In 2023, the Federal Court deemed the designation “unreasonable and unconstitutional”—but the Trudeau government defended the measure and is appealing, with a ruling expected this year.
According to the latest available data, Canada’s contributes 0.04 per cent to global plastic waste. The United States contributes 0.43 per cent—more than 10 times Canada’s share. But neither country is a major contributor to global plastic waste.
According to a 2024 article published in Nature, a leading scientific journal, no western country ranks among the top 90 global plastic polluters, thanks to their near-total waste collection and controlled disposal systems. Conversely, eight countries—India, Nigeria, Indonesia, China, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Russia and Brazil—generate more than half of global plastic waste. And nearly 75 per cent of the world’s ocean plastic comes from Asia with only six countries (Philippines, India, Malaysia, China, Indonesia and Myanmar) accounting for most of the world’s ocean plastic pollution.
The Trudeau government’s own science assessment, cited in the court appeal, states that 99 per cent of Canada’s plastic waste is already disposed of safely through recycling, incinerating and environmentally-friendly landfills. Despite these facts, plastic has become a target for blanket restrictions without fully considering its benefits or the downsides of switching to alternatives.
Consider this. Plastics are lightweight, durable and indispensable to modern life. From medical devices, food packaging, construction materials, textiles, electronics and agricultural equipment, plastics play a critical role in sectors that improve living standards.
Alternatives to plastic come with their own environmental cost. Again, according to the government’s own analysis, banning single-use plastics will actually increase waste generation rather than reduce it. While the government expects to remove 1.5 million tonnes of plastics by 2032 with the prohibition, it will generate nearly twice as much that weight in waste from alternatives such as paper, wood and aluminum over the same period. Put simply, the ban will result in more, not less, waste in Canada.
And there’s more. Studies suggest that plastic substitutes such as paper are heavier, require more water and energy to be produced, demand more energy to transport, contribute to greater smog formation, present more ozone depletion potential and result in higher greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
As noted by the Trudeau government, plastic substitutes contribute to lower air quality and “typically have higher climate change impacts” due to higher GHG emissions.
While plastic pollution is a pressing global environmental issue, Canada is not a major contributor to this problem. The rationale behind the Trudeau government’s plastic ban lacks foundation, and as major economies including the U.S. go back to plastic, Canada’s plastic prohibition becomes increasingly futile. The next federal government, whoever that may be, should reverse this plastic ban, which will do more harm than good.
Julio Mejía
Policy Analyst
Elmira Aliakbari
Director, Natural Resource Studies, Fraser Institute
Stocks sunk Thursday afternoon despite President Donald Trump’s decision to grant major exceptions to the 25% tariffs he put on Mexico and Canada earlier this week.
All three major U.S. market indexes were in the red by the time of Trump’s afternoon bill signing. Trump said Thursday in the Oval Office that steel and aluminum tariffs were on track for next week without modifications.
Trump shrugged off the stock losses, blaming the decline on “globalists.”
“I think it’s globalists that see how rich our country is going to be and don’t like it,” he said.
Trump has promised that his tariffs would shift the tax burden away from Americans and onto foreign countries, but tariffs are generally paid by the people who import the products. Those importers then have a choice: They can either absorb the loss or pass it on to consumers through higher prices. He also promised tariffs would make America “rich as hell.” And he’s used tariffs as a negotiating tactic to tighten border security.
Trump granted temporary tariff relief to both Canada and Mexico on Thursday by exempting goods under the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement from tariffs until April 2.
On April 2, Trump plans to announce broader reciprocal tariffs against countries that impose tariffs on U.S. goods or keep U.S. goods out of their markets through other methods.
Since imposing his latest round of tariffs on top of trading partners this week, Trump has been paring them back. On Wednesday, Trump said the Big Three automakers – Ford Motor Co., General Motors Co. and Stellantis NV – would be exempt from his tariffs for a month.
In February, Trump took a step forward on his plan to put reciprocal tariffs on U.S. trading partners by signing a memo directing staff to come up with solutions in 180 days. Trump previously said he would put those tariffs in place on April 2 to avoid any confusion on April 1.
In his joint address to Congress on Tuesday, Trump said all countries would have to either make their products in the U.S. or be subject to tariffs.
“Whatever they tariff us, we tariff them. Whatever they tax us, we tax them,” Trump said. “If they do non-monetary tariffs to keep us out of their market, then we do non-monetary barriers to keep them out of our market. We will take in trillions of dollars and create jobs like we have never seen before.”
The United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, or USMCA, governs trade between the U.S. and its northern and southern neighbors. It went into force on July 1, 2020. Trump signed the deal. That agreement continued to allow for duty-free trading between the three countries for products largely made in North America.
U.S. goods and services trade with USMCA totaled an estimated $1.8 trillion in 2022. Exports were $789.7 billion and imports were $974.3 billion. The U.S. goods and services trade deficit with USMCA was $184.6 billion in 2022, according to the Office of the United States Trade Representative.
