What to Know About Dave Weldon, Trump's Pick to Lead the CDC
Former Congressman Dr. Dave Weldon speaks in The Villages, Fla., on May 31, 2012. Credit - Brendan Farrington—AP
President Donald Trump's nominee to head the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), former Republican Congressman Dr. Dave Weldon, is set to face questioning by Senators on March 13.
Weldon is due to appear before the U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor & Pensions for his nomination hearing, and members will likely question him on topics including his past statements expressing vaccine skepticism. If confirmed by the Senate, Weldon would be the director of the agency responsible for protecting the country's public health.
Here's what to know about Weldon.
Weldon, 71, served in the Army, and currently operates a private medical practice in Florida. From 1995 to 2009, he served in Congress, representing Florida. Since then, he's largely been out of the political spotlight, though he's run campaigns—he lost the GOP Primary for a seat in the U.S. Senate in 2012, as well as the GOP Primary for a seat in the Florida House of Representatives in 2024.
From 2017 to 2020, Weldon was the president of the Alliance of Health Care Sharing Ministries, an association of faith-based organizations that claim to offer alternatives to health insurance. The organizations have sparked controversy and criticism from state regulators, who have expressed concern that the groups' marketing strategies have led to confusion among consumers over whether the ministries would fund medical claims.
When asked about this controversy by the New York Times in November, Weldon said that during the time he was president of the alliance he 'strongly encouraged all the ministries to get together and form an accreditation system, and I think they did,' but since he left, 'I don't know how rigorous it really was.'
Read More: The Powers Trump's Nominees Will Have Over Abortion
In the past, Weldon shared views similar to his would-be boss, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), when it comes to vaccines. Despite years of research proving the safety and efficacy of vaccines, Weldon has previously repeated the debunked claim that some children could develop autism if they receive the measles vaccine.
Dr. Peter Hotez—professor of pediatrics and molecular virology at Baylor College of Medicine and co-director of the Texas Children's Hospital Center for Vaccine Development—has never worked with Weldon, but says the false claim that vaccines can cause autism 'makes no sense.'
'We have overwhelming evidence that vaccines don't cause autism,' Hotez says. 'Anyone who wants to reopen spurious autism and vaccine links, you have to believe either they're misinformed or they have an agenda outside of public health.'
Hotez says that many of Weldon's comments were made years ago, and he hopes that Trump's nominee to lead the CDC has since learned more about the topic and changed his views. In November, when the Times spoke to Weldon, they asked him about his past comments, but Weldon declined to state whether he still believed that there is a link between vaccines and autism. He told the Times that his two adult children have been vaccinated, and that he gives vaccines, including the flu shot, to his adult patients.
While serving in Congress, Weldon sponsored a bill that passed with bipartisan support in 2003. The bill launched a program, known as the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), that allocated $15 billion for HIV, tuberculosis, and malaria prevention and treatment programs in low-income countries. In the more than two decades since, PEPFAR has saved up to 25 million lives, officials estimate.
Hotez says 'there's clearly a disconnect' between Weldon's support for PEPFAR and his previous anti-vaccine statements.
'But again, those [anti-vaccine theories] were statements he made almost 20 years ago, so what we need to find out is, where does he stand today and what are his views? So the [nomination hearing] will be very instructive in finding that out,' Hotez says.
Read More: What to Know About Marty Makary, Trump's Pick to Lead the FDA
Like some of Trump's other nominees to lead the nation's health agencies, such as Dr. Marty Makary, who has been nominated to lead the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Weldon has been a vocal critic of health agencies in the past. In April 2007, he said that federal agencies 'failed to free themselves from conflicts of interest that serve to undermine public confidence in the safety of vaccines.' He accused the federal government at the time of dedicating 'far more resources to promoting the immunizations than in safety evaluations,' and claimed that the CDC focused its vaccine safety resources on considering short-term side effects, and not enough focus was given to long-term side effects. He also proposed that the vaccine safety office be moved out of the CDC and operate instead as a separate office within HHS.
Hotez says he was critical of Weldon's comments back in 2007. 'There's no one that's more qualified to assess vaccine safety once a vaccine is licensed than the CDC,' Hotez says, adding that the CDC has multiple systems in place to monitor both the short and long-term side effects of vaccines.
Weldon authored and introduced the Weldon Amendment, which passed in 2005 and prohibits health agencies from discriminating against health care institutions, medical providers, and insurance plans that don't provide or fund abortion care, typically on religious grounds. Nourbese Flint, president of the reproductive rights group All* Above All, says the amendment 'has been incredibly harmful to abortion access.'
'This is particularly important in places where people don't have a lot of providers to turn to,' Flint says. 'Particularly for those in rural spaces where there are no other providers, people are stuck.'
Flint points out that Project 2025 encouraged the next presidential Administration to conduct 'abortion surveillance' through the CDC, which is the agency tasked with collecting health data across the country. Project 2025 calls for HHS to ensure that 'every state reports exactly how many abortions take place within its borders, at what gestational age of the child, for what reason, the mother's state of residence, and by what method.' Flint and other reproductive rights advocates fear that Weldon could follow through on that Project 2025 suggestion, and that the data collected could be used to identify and penalize providers or even patients.
Weldon has also shared unreliable claims about reproductive health. In 1998, he suggested that there was a connection between abortion and breast cancer; the American Cancer Society maintains that 'the best scientific evidence does not support a link between abortion and breast cancer risk.' In 2002, Weldon suggested that federal programs focus on abstinence education, rather than teaching adolescents about contraceptives, to prevent sexually transmitted infections (STIs)—research has found that abstinence-only education programs are ineffective.
'We've seen time and time again that Weldon has used bad science,' Flint says. 'Anybody who is worth their weight in salt has known that abstinence is not an effective policy against both STI and unplanned, untimed pregnancies, and that we have a lot of data and research on our side that having a robust sexual education and access to reproductive health care and destigmatizing has been the best ways in which we can reduce STIs and unplanned pregnancies.'
Flint calls Weldon 'dangerous' for America's public health, pointing to both his past anti-vaccine and anti-abortion comments. Flint says that when people share 'bad science,' it can lead to the public being uninformed about important health topics, which can have fatal consequences.
Contact us at letters@time.com.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Looking ahead to Missouri special session, Show Me Sports Investment Act
KANSAS CITY, Mo. — The Missouri General Assembly's special session reconvenes Monday, and it's the House side of the rotunda's turn in Jefferson City. The state Senate passed a trio of bills last week, one providing a plan to fund up to half of stadium projects for the Chiefs or Royals or Cardinals in St. Louis. The Missouri State House will consider the Show Me Sports Investment Act. The stadium funding bill sets the framework for the Royals and the Chiefs to pay back some of the costs for new and renovated venues. Construction bonds would be paid back using tax money generated at the stadiums and would cover up to 50% of the cost to build it. The teams would have to qualify to have access to that money. The stadiums would need to be built for football or baseball, have more than 30,000 seats, and cost at least half a billion dollars. On Sunday, Rudi Keller, the deputy editor of the Missouri Independent, discussed what could happen as the special session continues this week. Kansas City superheroes assemble behind local child battling cancer 'A member of the House budget Committee who will consider the spending bill on Tuesday said there is an assumption the House will pass this, and that's correct. I also talked to the Chair of the House Budget Committee earlier today, and it turns out he's not going to be demanding anything new. So as long as there aren't serious demands that endanger the bill from the House, much as the way demands from Senators resulted in a change to the call, I'm anticipating this will go relatively smoothly this week,' Keller said on 4 The People. The stadium funding bill does not have the words 'Royals' or 'Chiefs' in it, but a big reason for the calling of this special session was to find a way to keep both teams in the state and counter the plans of Kansas lawmakers. Nearly a year ago, the Kansas legislature approved a bill to utilize STAR bonds to cover stadium construction costs. The deadline for that bill is coming up at the end of June. 'If Kansas believes that we could really be in the conversation, you could see some limited extension,' said Kansas Senate President Ty Masterson. 'The way the law is written, it could be extended for up to a year. I don't see that happening.' You can watch the full conversation with Masterson and Keller here. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.


Business Insider
an hour ago
- Business Insider
BlackRock, State Street to urge dismissal of collusion case, Bloomberg says
BlackRock (BLK), Vanguard Group, and the asset management arm of State Street (STT) are headed to court over a lawsuit brought by Republican state attorneys general claiming they colluded to reduce coal output, Josh Sisco and Silla Brush of Bloomberg reports. Lawyers from the companies are set to urge a federal judge to dismiss the case. The suit claims the firm have large stakes in coal producers and profited when energy prices soared. Confident Investing Starts Here:
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Unsubstantiated 'chemtrail' conspiracy theories lead to legislation proposed in US statehouses
BATON ROUGE, La. (AP) — As Louisiana Rep. Kimberly Landry Coates stood before her colleagues in the state's Legislature she warned that the bill she was presenting might 'seem strange' or even crazy. Some lawmakers laughed with disbelief and others listened intently, as Coates described situations that are often noted in discussions of 'chemtrails' — a decades-old conspiracy theory that posits the white lines left behind by aircraft in the sky are releasing chemicals for any number of reasons, some of them nefarious. As she urged lawmakers to ban the unsubstantiated practice, she told skeptics to 'start looking up' at the sky. 'I'm really worried about what is going on above us and what is happening, and we as Louisiana citizens did not give anyone the right to do this above us,' the Republican said. Louisiana is the latest state taking inspiration from a wide-ranging conspiratorial narrative, mixing it with facts, to create legislation. Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee signed a similar measure into law last year and one in Florida has passed both the House and the Senate. More than a dozen other states, from New York to Arizona, have introduced their own legislation. Such bills being crafted is indicative of how misinformation is moving beyond the online world and into public policy. Elevating unsubstantiated theories or outright falsehoods into the legislative arena not only erodes democratic processes, according to experts, it provides credibility where there is none and takes away resources from actual issues that need to be addressed. 'Every bill like this is kind of symbolic, or is introduced to appease a very vocal group, but it can still cause real harm by signaling that these conspiracies deserve this level of legal attention,' said Donnell Probst, interim executive director of the National Association for Media Literacy Education. Louisiana's bill, which is awaiting Republican Gov. Jeff Landry's signature, prohibits anyone from 'intentionally" injecting, releasing, applying or dispersing chemicals into the atmosphere with the purpose of affecting the 'temperature, weather, climate, or intensity of sunlight.' It also requires the Department of Environmental Quality to collect reports from anyone who believes they have observed such activities. While some lawmakers have targeted real weather modification techniques that are not widespread or still in their infancy, others have pointed to dubious evidence to support legislation. Discussion about weather control and banning 'chemtrails' has been hoisted into the spotlight by high-profile political officials, including Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene. Recently, Marla Maples, the ex-wife of President Donald Trump, spoke in support of Florida's legislation. She said she was motivated to 'start digging' after seeing a rise in Alzheimer's. Asked jokingly by a Democratic state senator if she knew anyone in the federal government who could help on the issue, Maples smiled and said, 'I sure do.' Chemtrails vs. contrails Chemtrail conspiracy theories, which have been widely debunked and include a myriad of claims, are not new. The publication of a 1996 Air Force report on the possible future benefits of weather modification is often cited as an early driver of the narrative. Some say that evidence of the claims is happening right before the publics' eyes, alleging that the white streaks stretching behind aircrafts reveal chemicals being spread in the air, for everything from climate manipulation to mind control. Ken Leppert, an associate professor of atmospheric science at the University of Louisiana Monroe, said the streaks are actually primarily composed of water and that there is 'no malicious intent behind' the thin clouds. He says the streaks are formed as exhaust is emitted from aircrafts, when the humidity is high and air temperature is low, and that ship engines produce the same phenomenon. A fact sheet about contrails, published by multiple government agencies including NASA and the Environmental Protection Agency, explains that the streaks left behind by planes do not pose health risks to humans. However, the trails, which have been produced since the earliest days of jet aviation, do impact the cloudiness of Earth's atmosphere and can therefore affect atmospheric temperature and climate. Scientists have overwhelmingly agreed that data or evidence cited as proof of chemtrails 'could be explained through other factors, including well-understood physics and chemistry associated with aircraft contrails and atmospheric aerosols,' according to a 2016 survey published in the journal Environmental Research Letters. In the survey of 77 chemists and geochemists, 76 said they were not aware of evidence proving the existence of a secret large-scale atmospheric program. 'It's pure myth and conspiracy,' Leppert said. Cloud seeding While many of the arguments lawmakers have used to support the chemtrails narrative are not based in fact, others misrepresent actual scientific endeavors, such as cloud seeding; a process by which an artificial material — usually silver iodide — is used to induce precipitation or to clear fog. 'It's maybe really weak control of the weather, but it's not like we're going to move this cloud here, move this hurricane here, or anything like that,' Leppert said. Parker Cardwell, an employee of a California-based cloud seeding company called Rainmaker, testified before lawmakers in Louisiana and asked that an amendment be made to the legislation to avoid impacts to the industry. The practice is an imprecise undertaking with mixed results that isn't widely used, especially in Louisiana, which has significant natural rainfall. According to Louisiana's Department of Agriculture and Forestry, a cloud seeding permit or license has never been issued in the state. Geoengineering While presenting Louisiana's bill last week, Coates said her research found charts and graphics from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration on spraying the air with heavy metals to reflect sunlight back into space to cool the Earth. The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2022 directed the Office of Science and Technology Policy, with support from NOAA, to develop an initial governance framework and research plan related to solar radiation modification, or SRM. A resulting report, which Coates holds up in the House session, focuses on possible future actions and does not reflect decisions that had already been made. SRM 'refers to deliberate, large-scale actions intended to decrease global average surface temperatures by increasing the reflection of sunlight away from the Earth,' according to NOAA. It is a type of geoengineering. Research into the viability of many methods and potential unintended consequences is ongoing, but none have actually been deployed. Taking focus In recent years, misinformation and conspiratorial narratives have become more common during the debates and committee testimonies that are a part of Louisiana's lawmaking process. And while legislators say Louisiana's new bill doesn't really have teeth, opponents say it still takes away time and focus from important work and more pressing topics. State Rep. Denise Marcelle, a Democrat who opposed Louisiana's bill, pointed to other issues ailing the state, which has some of the highest incarceration, poverty, crime, and maternal mortality rates. 'I just feel like we owe the people of Louisiana much more than to be talking about things that I don't see and that aren't real,' she said. ___ Associated Press writers Kate Payne in Tallahassee, Florida, and Jack Dura in Bismarck, North Dakota, contributed to this story.