White House withdraws Surgeon General pick over foreign medical school controversy
The White House is understood to have made the decision to withdraw Dr Janette Nesheiwat's nomination to be United States Surgeon General, the second time one of President Donald Trump's top health care policy picks has faltered before being considered by the U.S. Senate.
The decision, which was first reported by Bloomberg News, comes just days before the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions committee had been scheduled to hold a hearing on her nomination.
Nesheiwat, a former Fox News contributor who is also the sister-in-law of former Trump White House National Security Adviser Mike Waltz, had been selected to be one of the country's top public health official largely on the strength of her record as a television personality.
But as her confirmation hearing approached, Nesheiwat had become a magnet for controversy after a CBS News report called into question whether she'd been forthright about her education and background.
ADVERTISEMENT
Last month, the television network reported that Nesheiwat had listed herself on LinkedIn as a graduate of the University of Arkansas School of Medicine, the institution where she completed her medical residency.
The board-certified physician actually attended and earned her doctoral degree from American University of the Caribbean (AUC) School of Medicine, which is located on the Caribbean island of St Maarten.
It's not uncommon for Americans to attend medical schools in the Caribbean, as those schools are known as having slightly more relaxed admissions standards than schools in the United States.
But those schools still teach a standard medical curriculum and award a Doctor of Medicine degree. At AUC, students complete a four-year program of two years in a classroom and an additional two years in clinical rotations at a licensed medical facility. CBS News reported Nesheiwat was enrolled there for six years, from 2000 to 2006.
Completing one's medical education after studying abroad also requires passing the three-step United States Medical Licensing Examination administered by the Federation of State Medical Boards and the National Board of Medical Examiners.
ADVERTISEMENT
Passing the USMLE is also required for aspiring physicians to be eligible for residency programs at American hospitals, the final step in education before being permitted to practice medicine.
It's at the University of Arkansas where Nesheiwat completed her medical education with a multi-year residency.
Jerome Adams, the former Surgeon General who served in that role during the first Trump administration, wrote on X that he did not know what was 'more troubling' to him, the possibility that 'stigma against foreign medical graduates' would have led to Nesheiwat's nomination being withdrawn, or the possibility that it would have been due to her support for vaccines.
'The FMG talk is ill informed and troubling. Much of our U.S. medical care (esp rural) depends on foreign grads. And Dr. N completed a U.S. residency (which is where you really learn how to practice medicine anyway). Hoping this doesn't stigmatize docs who trained outside U.S.,' he added.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
44 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - How thousands of unreviewed ingredients got into our food — and what FDA can do about it
At least 1,000 ingredients in food products on our grocery store shelves have never been checked for safety by the Food and Drug Administration. Dozens have raised serious safety concerns among experts. How did the FDA allow this? The answer can be found in the agency's lax interpretation of a little-known legal designation that lets companies decide for themselves if ingredients in their products are safe. Fortunately, there are steps the agency can take right now to stem the flow of potentially unsafe ingredients into our food supply. Environmental Defense Fund outlined these steps in a letter we recently sent to the agency, but first let's take a closer look at how we got here. 'Generally Recognized as Safe' is a designation Congress created in 1958 to allow commonly used food ingredients to bypass the FDA's pre-market safety review process. It was meant for food substances — such as oils, vinegar, baking soda and common spices — that were widely considered safe due to their long history of everyday use. Since 1958, this status has been coopted to cover a universe of foods that extends far beyond its original intent. According to FDA regulations, a chemical can receive the designation if experts widely agree that scientific evidence shows its use to be safe. But because 'Generally Recognized as Safe' wasn't meant for newer ingredients, Congress allowed ingredients so designated to skip the FDA's premarket approval process — despite requiring similar evidence for other additives. Under the agency's current interpretation, companies can designate the use of a substance as safe and take products with that substance to market without informing the FDA or the public of its decision. While companies may voluntarily submit a notice to FDA offering safety evidence, they are not required to — and often don't. Our organization estimated that manufacturers have notified FDA of fewer than half of the ingredients they market as safe under the 'Generally Recognized' standard. Companies that do bother to submit a notice to the FDA are free to withdraw it at any point and take their product to market, provided they can cite evidence of its safe use. But this 'evidence' is often far from independent. Companies can, and often do, enlist their own employees or handpicked consultants to conduct their safety assessments. The result is a process riddled with conflicts of interest that lets unsafe foods into Americans' homes. We analyzed 'Generally Recognized as Safe' notices received by the FDA, obtained via a Freedom of Information request, and found that of the 1,163 submitted by companies between 1997 and April 2024, 192 were later withdrawn, with safety concerns cited in at least a dozen cases. We also identified 31 ingredients that companies have advertised to be recognized as safe, such as in press releases, trade publications and on their own websites (see the Appendix of our letter). However, we were unable to find the scientific evidence required under this standard to demonstrate these ingredients are commonly regarded as safe among experts. This raises red flags that FDA should be taking seriously. Although a comprehensive fix to the 'Generally Recognized' standard will require legislation from Congress, there are significant steps the FDA can take right away to ensure a more rigorous determination process that better protects Americans' health. Starting today, the FDA can use existing authority to remove safe designations from ingredients it deems unsafe and take them off the market. It can also notify manufacturers, importers, distributors and retailers that the substance is no longer recognized as safe. In addition, the FDA can enforce the requirement that companies base safety designations on publicly available data. Although this won't curtail companies' ability to self-declare substances as safe, it will require those who do to be transparent in citing their evidence. Third, the FDA can enforce the requirement that safety assessments consider vital health information such as a substance's dietary sources, potential cancer risks and the cumulative health effects of similar substances. Finally, the FDA can make companies revise and resubmit their data for review when they submit 'Generally Recognized as Safe' notices that fail to comply with the criteria. The 'Generally Recognized as Safe' designation is far from a perfect system, but it can work better if it is interpreted and enforced more comprehensively. If the FDA is serious about protecting public health, it should start by fully exercising the tools already at its disposal. Maria Doa is senior director at the Chemicals Policy at Environmental Defense Fund. Maricel Maffini is an independent consultant focused on human and environmental health and chemical safety. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
UPI
an hour ago
- UPI
'Unite for Vets' rally in Washington, D.C., protest overhaul of VA
1 of 8 | Veterans, military families and demonstrators gather on the National Mall in Washington, D.C.,, to participate in a Unite for Veterans Rally to protest the Trump Administration's cuts to staffing and programs at the Department of Veterans Affairs. Photo by Annabelle Gordon/UPI | License Photo June 6 (UPI) -- Several thousand veterans converged on the National Mall on Friday at a rally among 200 events nationwide against a proposed overhaul that includes staffing reduction and some services shifted. The Veterans Administration counters the new proposed budget is higher than last year, processing of claims have sped up and it's easier to get benefits. Veterans, military families and others participated in the Unite for Veterans, Unite for America Rally on the 81st anniversary of D-Day, which was the Allies' amphibious invasion of German-occupied France. The protests, which were organized by a union, took place at 16 state capitol buildings and more than 100 other places across 43 states. "We are coming together to defend the benefits, jobs and dignity that every generation of veterans has earned through sacrifice," Unite for Veterans said on its website. "Veteran jobs, healthcare, and essential VA services are under attack. We will not stand by." Speakers in Washington included Democrats with military backgrounds: Sen. Tammy Duckworth of Illinois, former Rep. Conor Lamb of Pennsylvania and California Rep. Derek Tran. There were signs against President Donald Trump, VA Secretary Doug Collins and Elon Musk, the multi-billionaire who ran the Department of Government Efficiency. They said those leaders are betraying the country's promises to troops. "Are you tired of being thanked for our service in the public and stabbed in our back in private?" Army veteran Everett Kelly, the national president of the American Federation of Government Employees, asked the crowd. "For years, politicians on both sides of the aisle have campaigned on their support of veterans, but once they get into office, they cut our benefits, our services. They take every opportunity to privatize our health care." The Trump administration plans to cut 83,000 VA staffers and shift more money from the federal health care system to private-sector clinics. The administration's proposed budget for the VA, released on Friday, slashes spending for "medical services" by $12bn - or nearly 20% - an amount offset by a corresponding 50% boost in funding for veterans seeking healthcare in the private sector. The Department of Veterans Affairs employs approximately 482,000 people, including 500,000 workers at 170 hospitals and 1,200 local clinics in the nation's largest health care system. In all, there are 15.8 million veterans, which represents 6.1% of the civilian population 18 years and older. VA officials said the event was misguided. "Imagine how much better off veterans would be if VA's critics cared as much about fixing the department as they do about protecting its broken bureaucracy," VA press secretary Peter Kasperowicz said in a statement to UPI. "The Biden Administration's VA failed to address nearly all of the department's most serious problems, such as rising health care wait times, growing backlogs of veterans waiting for disability compensation and major issues with survivor benefits." Kasperowicz told UPI disability claims backlog is already down 25% since Trump took office on Jan. 20 after it increased 24% during the Biden administration. He said VA has opened 10 new healthcare clinics around the country, and Trump has proposed a 10% budget increase to $441.3 billion in fiscal year 2026. The administration's proposed budget for the VA reduces spending for "medical services" by $12 billion - or nearly 20% - which is offset by a 50% boost in funding for veterans seeking healthcare in the private sector. Kasperowicz said the "VA is accelerating the deployment of its integrated electronic health record system, after the program was nearly dormant for almost two years under the Biden Administration." The event was modeled after the Bonus Army protests of the 1930s, when veterans who served in World War I gathered in the nation's capital to demand extra pay denied after leaving the service. Irma Westmoreland, a registered nurse working at a VA hospital and the secretary-treasurer of National Nurses United, told the crowd in Washington: "It's important for every person to keep their job, from the engineering staff to the housekeeper to the dietary staff. When cuts are made, the nursing and medical staff will have to pick up all their work that needs to be done."
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Why Oscar Health, Inc. (OSCR) Soared On Thursday
We recently published a list of . In this article, we are going to take a look at where Oscar Health, Inc. (NYSE:OSCR) stands against other best-performing stocks on Thursday. Oscar Health snapped a five-day losing streak on Thursday, jumping 10.6 percent to close at $15.65 apiece as investors resorted to bargain-hunting while waiting for more concrete developments on the Trump administration's Medicare Advantage review. Earlier this year, lawmakers passed a $5-trillion tax-and-spending package that shaves as much as $900 billion in Medicaid, which servers over 70 million low-income households. A close up of a patient and a healthcare professional engaging in conversation, showing the company's commitment to patient care. Now, Senate Republicans to broaden savings by looking for supposed inefficiencies in the Medicare program for senior citizens. In the first quarter of the year, Oscar Health, Inc. (NYSE:OSCR) registered a 55-percent increase in attributable net income of $275 million versus the $177 million registered in the same period last year. Revenues rose by 42 percent to $3.046 billion from $2.142 billion year-on-year. Overall, OSCR ranks 5th on our list of best-performing stocks on Thursday. While we acknowledge the potential of OSCR as an investment, our conviction lies in the belief that some AI stocks hold greater promise for delivering higher returns and have limited downside risk. If you are looking for an extremely cheap AI stock that is also a major beneficiary of Trump tariffs and onshoring, see our free report on the best short-term AI stock. READ NEXT: 20 Best AI Stocks To Buy Now and 30 Best Stocks to Buy Now According to Billionaires. Disclosure: None. This article is originally published at Insider Monkey. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
