RFK Jr. grilled by Congress over health spending cuts, vaccine overhaul
House members on June 24 grilled Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. for roughly three hours during a hearing, sparring with the Health and Human Services Department chief over a range of topics.
Kennedy testified before the House Energy and Commerce Health Subcommittee on the health department's 2026 budget, with House members demanding answers about funding cuts to critical programs as well as his stances on vaccine oversight, addiction recovery, emergency abortions, HIV prevention and dietary guidelines.
Plus, Kennedy faced pointed questions about the plans to merge several agencies − including the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health and National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences − into the new Administration for a Healthy America, AHA.
Kennedy also drew praise from House Republicans as he defended his moves as necessary to attack the nation's chronic disease epidemic and slow federal health spending,
Here are five key moments from Kennedy's testimony.
Rep. Frank Pallone Jr., D-New Jersey, cited concerns by scientists about Kennedy's leadership during his opening months as the nation's top health official.
"The thing that disturbs me most is this anti-science agenda," Pallone said.
Pallone said most scientists and medical professionals believe Kennedy's views on vaccines are "dangerous and not supported by scientific evidence."
"I just really think people are going to die as a result of your actions and Congressional Republican actions," Pallone said.
Pallone added that Kennedy hasn't responded to his questions about workforce and program cuts even though he pledged to "radical transparency." Pallone added Kennedy has refused to take public input about vaccines, including his decision to overhaul a vaccine advisory panel, called the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, or ACIP.
Kennedy said he fired ACIP members "who had conflicts with the pharmaceutical industry."
He later added that when he met Pallone 15 years ago, the congressman was sympathetic to people who suffered vaccine injuries.
"You were the leading member of Congress on that issue," Kennedy said. "Since then, you've accepted $2 million from pharmaceutical companies in contributions − more than any other member of this committee."
Kennedy added: "And your enthusiasm for supporting the old ACIP committee, which is completely rife and pervasive with pharmaceutical conflicts, seems to be an outcome of those contributions."
After other committee members raised concerns about his comments, Kennedy said he retracted his words.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-New York, asked Kennedy whether he was aware of reports that the Justice Department is investigating UnitedHealthcare over Medicare Advantage payments.
"You are not aware that the Trump Department of Justice is investigating the largest insurance company in America?" Ocasio-Cortez said.
Kennedy said he was not aware of any such investigation, which prompted AOC to point out he oversees the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.
She then asked why his department approved more lucrative payments next fiscal year for Medicare plans administered by private insurance companies such as UnitedHealthcare.
Rep. Troy Carter, D-Louisiana, questioned Kennedy and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention cuts to HIV research.
Carter cited a report from the Association of American Medical Colleges that found deep cuts to National Institutes of Health-funded research of HIV and AIDS.
Carter said one study, focusing on HIV and adolescents, was stopped due to funding cuts. Carter added that funding cuts halted HIV vaccine research.
Kennedy countered that HHS has 27 departments focusing on HIV and that agency spends $7.5 billion per year.
When Carter said HIV funding cuts slows momentum for life-saving research, Kennedy said, "show me one life."
Carter responded, "I'm insulted that you would suggest that there aren't lives that have been lost. People are dying every day, sir."
While several Democrats criticized him over the firings of federal employees and research funding cuts, Kennedy defended the moves as necessary. Several House Republicans echoed the need to direct funding in a way that better improves Americans' health.
He said the U.S. is the "sickest developed nation" even though "we spend $4.5 trillion annually on health care − two to three times more per capita to comparable nations," he said.
He said the budget maintains funding for Medicare and Medicaid, the federal health insurance programs for the elderly, disabled and low-income families. Although he did not address proposed Medicaid cuts in a House tax cut and spending bill that awaits a Senate vote, he said the HHS budget cuts are aimed at bureaucracy.
He said the nation's spiraling spending on health care "will ransom our children to bankruptcy, servitude and disastrous health consequences."
"We won't solve this problem by throwing more money at it," Kennedy said "We must spend smarter."
Rep. Michael Rulli, R-Ohio, lauded Kennedy for his focus on a 2023 train derailment in East Palestine, Ohio. The NIH will spend $10 million to fund a five-year study on the long-term health effects of people who lived in nearby communities.
During the Biden administration, Rulli said health officials denied the potential for long-term health consequences from the train derailment.
Kennedy said he visited East Palestine shortly after the crash and talked with people who complained of breathing, stomach and eye problems.
"I promised I would do everything I could to help them," Kennedy said, who vowed to do "honest science" over the life of the grant.
"We're going to fully disclose whatever we find and let the chips fall where they may," Kennedy said.
This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: RFK Jr. testifies before House Health committee
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
A Big, Beautiful weekend on the Hill: 'Everybody having fun yet?'
Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., was ebullient Tuesday afternoon. The South Dakota Republican just concluded a lengthy lunch meeting with fellow GOPers and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent about the Big, Beautiful Bill. "Good afternoon. Everybody having fun yet?" Thune asked the Congressional press corps as he approached the microphone in the Ohio Clock Corridor of the Capitol for his weekly exchange with reporters. "Ask us around 3:45 Sunday morning," suggested yours truly. Reporter's Notebook: Marathon Weekend Awaits Senate As Johnson Prepares House For 'Big, Beautiful Bill' Battle If you are an insomniac… Read On The Fox News App Or don't want to see the National Symphony Orchestra Pops perform Dolly Parton's musical canon at the Kennedy Center… Or you don't have tickets to see the Savannah Bananas play at Nats Park this weekend… The U.S. Senate may be the place for you. Action on the Big, Beautiful Bill could happen at any time of the day or night this weekend. The Senate is attempting to pass the Big, Beautiful Bill sometime on Saturday or Sunday. Maybe even early Monday. Presuming Senate Republicans can pass the bill. "If the bill is going to pass, do you expect that you at least have two or three members on your side who would vote no?" I asked Thune. "Could be," replied Thune. "Why?" I countered. "Well, we've got a lot of very independent thinking senators who have reasons and things that they'd like to have in this bill that would, in their view, make it stronger," answered Thune. "Hopefully when push comes to shove and everybody has to say yes or no, we'll get the number of votes that we need." House Conservatives Go To War With Senate Over Trump's 'Big, Beautiful Bill' There's more political pushing and shoving in the U.S. Senate than there is in a line of fourth graders waiting for the water fountain after recess. And senators may advance beyond pushing and shoving to actual fighting as Republicans grouse about the bill's contents. It's about the math. Senate Republicans can still lose three votes and pass the bill with a tie-breaking vote by Vice President Vance. Fox was told that the bill was in trouble if there are ten potential noes now. But if the universe of prospective nays is only five, they can probably whittle that down enough to pass the bill. Here are the GOP senators worth keeping an eye on because of possible problems they could have with particular provisions in the legislation: Sens. Rand Paul, R-Ky., Ron Johnson, R-Wisc., Rick Scott, R-Fla., Josh Hawley, R-Mo., Thom Tillis, R-N.C., Mike Lee, R-Utah, John Kennedy, R-La., Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, Susan Collins, R-Maine, John Curtis, R-Utah and Jim Justice, R-W.V. That's 11. And many of those on the list could vote yes. They may hold out until the end to either score a provision in the bill they want. Or, they want to understand the final product. "We don't know what's in the bill. The parliamentarian has thrown out some provisions," said Kennedy. "Look, I'm labor. I'm not management. But I got one vote, the same as management does. And I'm willing to work nights. I'm willing to work weekends. But what I'm not willing to do is have someone pat me on the head and say 'shut up and just vote for it.'" Kennedy said he unearthed "a few things in this bill that we weren't told about. And I'm not happy." With hat tips to boxing analysts Al Bernstein and Larry Merchant, Thune reverted to discussing the physicality of senators. "When push comes to shove, you're looking at whether or not you're going to allow the perfect to become the enemy," said Thune. "You have to recognize that this is a process whereby everybody doesn't get everything they want." Senate Gop Aims To Approve Major Legislation Next Week As Trump Touts Party Unity One of the most outstanding issues remains SALT, the deduction for state and local taxes in high-tax states. "We'll have a solution on that in 24 to 48 hours," said Bessent after his huddle with GOP senators. "I know that there are a lot of conservatives who don't like it," said White House National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett on Fox Business. "A lot of very important people in the House, who want it as big as it can be. And, Secretary Bessent is in there working with people to find exactly the right number that'll land the bill." So when does the Senate finish? "The question of when will the Senate get it done, that's a great question," said House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Jason Smith, R-Mo. "They've had it for over six weeks. I'm waiting." The Senate will likely take a procedural vote to formally get on the bill on Friday. If the Senate votes to get on the bill, 20 hours of clock time starts to run under special Senate budget rules. The procedural vote only needs a simple majority. The 20 hours of time is split. Democrats will probably burn all 10 of their hours. Republicans will use a few of their hours. So, the Senate probably begins its "vote-a-rama" on the bill late in the wee hours of Saturday morning. A "vote-a-rama" is where the Senate takes hours and hours of consecutive roll call votes on amendments to the package. It would culminate with passage of the Big, Beautiful Bill in the Senate late Saturday or early Sunday. Senate Republicans Look To Sweeten Medicaid Pot To Silence Dissent On Trump's 'Big, Beautiful Bill' Note that it is impossible to game out when this could happen. But frankly, a final vote could come at any time of the day or night all weekend long – if not early Monday. Also, this scenario presumes everything goes swimmingly. The most recent vote-a-rama ran just under ten hours earlier this year. A 2021 vote-a-rama consumed 14 hours and 48 minutes, with the Senate considering a total of 40 amendments. We believe this vote-a-rama might be on the longer end. Here's the other wild card: How fast can the House pivot to pass the bill and align with the Senate? House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., signaled the House may aim to vote on Tuesday. Also, the "72-hour rule" to allow the House to read the bill before voting does not apply. The Senate is sending back to the House an "amendment" to the original House plan. Thus, the "72-hour rule" is not in play under these circumstances. However, the question is if Johnson faces pressure to let the bill marinate for a few days. Trump Pressures Congress To Pass 'Big, Beautiful Bill,' Insisting 'No One Goes On Vacation Until It's Done' But some House conservatives aren't happy with the Senate measure. "We're not going to get jammed on this. We're just not," said Rep. Ralph Norman, R-S.C. Rep. August Pfluger, R-Texas, believes the Senate should just accept the House measure – since the House could barely pass its version in May. "We did the hard work of threading a very tight needle with this legislation. So it does not need to come back looking too much different from what we ended up passing out of the House," said Pfluger. So the question is whether the Senate can pass its bill. And if the House can accept whatever the Senate passes. So, as I said, if you don't have a lot to do this weekend, Capitol Hill may be the spot to be. Especially at 3:45 Sunday article source: A Big, Beautiful weekend on the Hill: 'Everybody having fun yet?'


UPI
2 hours ago
- UPI
Trump's budget director defends NPR, PBS, foreign aid cuts to senators
1 of 3 | White House budget director Russell Vought testifies at a Senate Committee on Appropriations hearing on Wednesda. Photo by Annabelle Gordon/UPI | License Photo June 25 (UPI) -- White House budget director Russell Vought on Wednesday urged U.S. senators to approve the Trump administration's proposed cuts of $8.3 billion in foreign assistance and $1.1 billion for public broadcasting. Vought testified before the Senate Appropriations Committee. The cuts, which are from the Department of Government Efficiency, are a tiny fraction of the nearly $7 trillion the federal government spends each year The House last week voted 214-212 to advance the request that reduces funds for the U.S. Agency for International Development, which has largely been dismantled, and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which helps to fund NPR and PBS. Republicans have a 53-47 majority in the Senate. A simple majority is needed for passage. A group of protesters disrupted the meeting, saying "Vought's Cuts Kill," and "Vought Lies, People Die!" Capitol Police officers forcibly removed some protesters from the room, with at least one hitting his head on the floor. During his opening remarks, Vought touted the cuts as part of Trump's "steadfast commitment to cutting wasteful federal spending antithetical to American interests." "Most Americans would be shocked and appalled to learn that their tax dollars, money they thought was going to medical care, was actually going to far-left activism, population control and sex workers," Vought said. "To be clear, no lifesaving treatment will be impacted by this rescissions package." If Congress approves the cuts, the AIDS program would lose $400 million, and another $500 million would be stripped from global health programs that support child and maternal health, AIDS care and prevention of infectious diseases. Lawmakers from both parties have criticized the proposed cuts. "There's no way that President Trump's administration would allow such wasteful and questionable spending," Senate Appropriations Chair Susan Collins, R-Maine, told Vought. "So, I am puzzled why you would be cutting funds that the president signed in March as part of the continuing resolution." Trump signed legislation in March to keep the government open through September. Vought responded the costs are "largely multiyear funding," and that "there is some expiring funds with regard to fiscal year '25, but the way that this was structured was to find the waste. "We are $37 trillion in national debt," Vought said. "Our view is to see, when we look at these programs, can we do it cheaper, as evidenced by what we find, and then to reflect that, with some savings to the taxpayer." Collins also questioned the administration's proposed cuts targeting the U.S. President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, or PEPFAR. "These are not only the right thing to do for humanitarian reasons, but they're incredible instruments of soft power," she said. That includes "lifesaving multivitamins for pregnant mothers and the food supplement that's used for malnourished children." Collins held up a packet of Ready-to-Use Therapeutic Food used to treat malnutrition in babies and young children. Sen. Lindsey Graham, the Republican serving South Carolina, said he was surprised that millions of dollars were being spent to support abortions and gender care under PEPFAR. The AIDS-fighting program has been credited for saving millions of lives since President George W. Bush launched it more than 20 years ago. Graham said he would approve the measure though he backs the program. "And to my Democratic colleagues: There is a consequence to this crap," Graham said. "The first thing I thought about: How is PEPFAR fraud, waste and abuse? Well, I had no idea there was one dollar spent like this." GOP members in the House and Senate have voiced concerns about the potential impact cuts would have on local stations and rural radio. "We have Native American radio stations in South Dakota. They get their funding through NPR," Sen. Mike Rounds, R-S.D., said during the hearing. "Ninety-some percent of what they use." The director called PBS and NPR "radical far-left networks," and "there is no longer any excuse for tax dollars to subsidize" them.


Boston Globe
2 hours ago
- Boston Globe
Before same-sex marriage was US law, they said ‘I do' in Massachusetts
By the time the Supreme Court ruled in Obergefell v. Hodges on June 26, 2015, that the Constitution guarantees a right to same-sex marriage, 37 states and the District of Columbia already allowed it, and public opinion was moving swiftly toward acceptance. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Today, though, the picture is more complicated. Last month, a Gallup survey found that while 68% of Americans support same-sex marriage, approval among Republicans had slipped to 41% after peaking at 55% in 2021 and 2022. And the Supreme Court's 2022 ruling that a right to abortion could not be found in the Constitution raised fears among many supporters of same-sex marriage that the court could overturn the Obergefell decision on similar grounds. Advertisement 20 Related : Those who said 'I do' in Massachusetts on May 17, 2004, were among the first same-sex couples to be legally married in the United States. (The marriages of thousands of couples who were issued marriage licenses in San Francisco earlier that year were later voided by the California Supreme Court.) Advertisement We spoke to five Massachusetts couples, four of whom were plaintiffs in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, the case that led to the decision by the state's Supreme Judicial Court. They shared some of the ways in which marriage has shaped their lives. Julie and Hillary Goodridge. Greene, Bill Globe Staff Hillary Goodridge and Julie N.W. Goodridge Boston One month after Hillary Goodridge said 'I do' to Julie Goodridge, her longtime partner, she found herself in the hospital needing stitches after an accident involving a rake and a split lip. As they were checking in, a nurse asked Hillary who Julie was. Julie said, 'her wife.' It was the first time either had publicly used the word to describe her partner. 'We walked right into the emergency room as a married couple,' Julie said. Related : It was quite a change from nearly a decade earlier, when Julie gave birth to the couple's daughter, Annie. Hillary was in the room for Julie's planned cesarean section, but during the procedure, the doctors realized the baby had ingested something and sent her to the neonatal intensive care unit. Hillary was initially barred from the NICU and from Julie's recovery room. 'At that moment, you're not really thinking about social change,' Julie, 67, said. But two decades later, she says, 'the cultural moment that we are in now is so filled with anxiety and vitriol.' 'We're certainly not set up well at the Supreme Court for our families to be protected,' she said. 'If we're going to continue with the current perspective that prior decisions that prior courts have made have limited value, equal marriage is going to have a problem.' Advertisement Hillary, 69, remains more sanguine. 'There is an entire generation of new adults, new voters, who grew up in a world where we had marriage equality,' she said. 'I do not believe we will turn that back.' When the couple married at the Unitarian Universalist Association, overlooking Boston Common and the state House, Annie was the ring bearer. Although the Goodridges separated two years later, Hillary said of their marriage, 'It was totally worth it. I have never regretted it.' In September, Hillary and Julie were proud mothers of the bride when Annie got married in Massachusetts. Eve C. Alpern and Brenda Morris Belmont, Massachusetts In 2007, Brenda Morris gave birth to identical twin boys, Jaden and Isaac. Through the chaotic early days of caring for newborn twins, Brenda and her wife, Eve Alpern, had to navigate a bureaucratic thicket. To guarantee that they both had full parental rights under state law, they chose to legally adopt the children -- a step that they said required Brenda to first sever her rights as the biological parent. 'From hospital policies to custody laws, school registration and passport applications,' Eve said, 'raising our kids has been impacted by our marriage.' Related : Eve, however, had never wanted to get married. 'I associated the institution of marriage with treating women like property,' she said. 'But I envisioned a life in love.' Despite that feeling, she found herself waiting in line next to Brenda at City Hall in Cambridge, Massachusetts, at 2 p.m. May 16, 2004. At midnight, along with nearly 250 other couples, they were among the first same-sex couples in the city to receive marriage licenses. Advertisement Later, they had 75 close friends and family come for an interfaith service, led by a lesbian rabbi, at a historic estate in Arlington, Massachusetts. 'We felt blessed and very, very lucky,' Brenda, 54, said. 'The legal wins were huge, but they don't mean we're fully equal,' Eve, 52, said. 'In this political climate, rights we fought so hard for are being rolled back overnight. The hate is louder. The threats are real. Marriage equality was never the endgame; it was a beginning. We're still fighting to feel safe, seen and secure in our own country.' From left, Mike Horgan and his husband, Ed Balmelli, at their home in Boston. SOPHIE PARK/NYT Mike Horgan and Ed Balmelli Boston Over the course of 20 years of marriage, Ed Balmelli and Mike Horgan both lost their parents. Beyond sharing their grief, they said, their marriage also saved them from additional anguish as they made funeral arrangements and divided their parents' assets with their siblings. They were also listed in the obituaries in the same manner as their married siblings. In 2000, the couple traveled to Vermont to have a civil union ceremony. 'That was the closest thing we could do to get married,' Ed said. 'But then you tell people, 'We're a civil union,' and they're like, 'What does that mean?'' Questions like that convinced the couple to join the lawsuit. 'My feeling on it was that if this era got by us and we weren't involved, I think I would regret that,' Mike said. 'I think it's the most important thing that we've ever done in our lives.' They no longer have to explain their relationship, and when their parents died, they were treated like their many siblings in their large Irish families. Advertisement As Ed, 65, and Mike, 66, celebrated their 20th anniversary last year, they said their joy had been tempered by their concerns about the Supreme Court. After the court legalized same-sex marriage across the country, Mike said, 'we had the feeling that we were done fighting now, we can rest easy. But, he said, 'if they can take away a woman's right to an abortion, they can take anything away.' David Wilson spoke in Arlington as his husband Robert Compton looked on. John Tlumacki/Globe Staff David Wilson and Robert Compton Provincetown, Massachusetts Two decades after Rob Compton married David Wilson, he said he has to explain to his grandchildren why their wedding was such a big deal in 2004. 'Today, we have no qualms about it,' he said. But young people, he said, 'just don't get' why so many were against it at the time. Related : Both men had been married to women and had children, and knew that marriage provided tangible benefits. 'If you say, 'We're married,' immediately, everybody knows what that means, and they treat you accordingly,' David, 81, said. Rob had been the head of a large dental group practice in Michigan when he came out in 1994. When his partners in the practice later asked him to resign, without giving cause, he said, he refused. He was then fired. (He sued for wrongful termination and won the case and the appeal.) By the spring of 1996, he had moved to Massachusetts, one of the few states at the time that banned discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in employment, housing and other services. He met David soon afterward; they moved in together and had a commitment ceremony in 2000. During an overnight emergency room visit for a kidney stone, David was denied access to Rob's room. It was a shocking way for them to learn the limits of the state anti-discrimination laws. 'It made me aware of the fact that I have individual rights in Massachusetts and some workplace protections,' Rob, 76, said, even as he and David were denied the federal rights and protections that straight married couples enjoyed. Advertisement That episode, Rob said, convinced the couple that they should become part of the Goodridge lawsuit. Today, they said, they are hopeful about the changes that have taken place in the last 50 years. 'When David and I were young in the '50s and '60s, you would never admit you were queer,' Rob said. Now 'a lot of young people today feel empowered to just be themselves. That's a huge swing.' From left, Heidi and Gina Nortonsmith in Northampton. JAROD LEW/NYT Gina and Heidi Nortonsmith Northampton, Massachusetts For years after Heidi Nortonsmith and Gina Nortonsmith were legally married, they carried their marriage certificate everywhere they went. It afforded them 'a measure of security for when we traveled out of state or needed to make our way to the hospital for a family emergency,' Heidi said. The couple, who have been together since 1990, held a commitment ceremony in 1993. Heidi gave birth to their children, Avery, in 1996, and Quinn, in 2000. Gina was not legally recognized as a parent until she completed the process of adopting them, about a year after each was born. Even so, they considered themselves lucky. 'We live in Northampton; it was a very supportive community,' Gina said. 'We were already out. We each had very supportive families. We were not in danger of losing a job because of it.' Gina and Heidi, both 60, gave their two sons the last name Nortonsmith -- a combination of their family names. After they were married, they legally changed their last names, too. 'That was the day that we all became Nortonsmiths,' Gina said. It took a decade for the couple to be comfortable traveling without their marriage certificate. 'Without even noticing a precise moment,' Heidi said, 'we'd each become comfortable, in the sense that our marriage would be understood and respected, no matter where we traveled throughout the country.' This article originally appeared in