Trump's Surgeon General Pick Is Tearing the MAHA Movement Apart
May 9, 2025 2:40 PM Casey Means isn't currently licensed as a doctor. But that's not why anti-vaxxers and conspiracists think she's unsuited to be surgeon general—to them, her anti-vaccine opinions aren't extreme enough. Dr. Casey Means attends a confirmation hearing for Robert F. Kennedy Jr. at the Capitol. Photographer: Ben Curtis/ AP Images
There are a lot of reasons to question President Donald Trump's decision to nominate Casey Means to be surgeon general. She is not currently licensed as a doctor, failed to finish her surgical residency, and has voiced anti-vaccine opinions and embraced unproven alternative medicine, including advocating for raw milk and talking to trees.
But her questionable credentials are not the reasons why a large cohort of anti-vaxxers, extremists, and far-right figures are angry about the nomination, which Trump credits to health secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
For figures like former Kennedy running mate Nicole Shanahan and renowned anti-vaccine activist Mike Adams, better known as the Health Ranger, Means is nowhere near extreme enough in her views, and is viewed as a 'Manchurian asset.'
'She's not a health freedom advocate,' Adams wrote on X. 'She's not a vaccine truther. She'll never recommend natural cancer cures or remedies. She's basically cosplaying as a MAHA champion. In reality, she is an establishment pick, and she'll push the establishment narrative. 100% guaranteed. Count on it.'
'It's very strange,' Shanahan wrote on X. 'Doesn't make any sense. I was promised that if I supported RFK Jr. in his Senate confirmation that [Means would not] be working under HHS or in an appointment (and that people much more qualified would be). I don't know if RFK very clearly lied to me, or what is going on. It has been clear in recent conversations that he is reporting to someone regularly who is controlling his decisions (and it isn't President Trump).'
Responding to Shanahan's post, Michael Flynn, the disgraced former national security adviser, wrote, 'It is another terrible personnel decision by @POTUS.'
Conspiracy theorist Laura Loomer, meanwhile, who has enough influence in the White House to get credit for a recent purge of national security staff, called for the nomination to be revoked, citing what she says is evidence that Means had been vaccinated against COVID-19 as proof of her unfitness.
The backlash is the latest in a series of criticisms of the way Kennedy is implementing his Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) agenda, with people who have in the past been his most vocal supporters now questioning whether he has become part of the establishment. Much of the criticism is coming from the anti-vaccine community, in which Kennedy himself was a prominent leader for many years. But many in that world see the policies Kennedy is implementing as head of the Department for Health and Human Services (HHS) as a failure to fulfil his campaign promises.
Means unquestionably has support from within the MAHA movement, with figures from the wellness world, where Means has a huge following, celebrating her nomination. 'A superb choice for US Surgeon General,' Dr. Suneel Dhand wrote on Instagram. 'Finally a doctor not owned by Big Pharma.'
But on the 'health freedom' side of the movement, which is filled with outspoken anti-vaccine activists, the nomination was viewed as a disaster and further evidence that Kennedy is not really in charge. 'I can't help but think this is a very carefully groomed and selected person,' Dr. Suzanne Humphries, who has falsely stated that the polio vaccine doesn't work, wrote on X. 'Just about no clinical experience. Talks a great game about everything but vaccines.'
Means' nomination was announced on Wednesday after Trump withdrew his nomination of Dr. Janette Nesheiwat, a former Fox News contributor whose résumé has been questioned in recent weeks.
'Casey has impeccable 'MAHA' credentials, and will work closely with our wonderful Secretary of Health and Human Services, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., to ensure a successful implementation of our Agenda in order to reverse the Chronic Disease Epidemic, and ensure Great Health, in the future, for ALL Americans,' Trump wrote on Truth Social.
However, on Thursday when asked by a reporter why he chose Means, Trump admitted: 'I don't know her, I listened to the recommendation of Bobby.'
Means, the White House, and Kennedy did not respond to requests for comment on the criticism about the nomination.
A spokesperson for HHS pointed WIRED to a post on X by Kennedy, in which he defended Means and suggested the criticism was coming from Big Pharma: 'I have little doubt that these companies and their conflicted media outlets will continue to pay bloggers and other social media influencers to weaponize innuendo to slander and vilify Casey, the same way they try to defame me and President Trump,' Kennedy wrote.
When asked which criticism specifically Kennedy was referencing, HHS did not respond.
In an interview on Fox News broadcast on Thursday evening, Kennedy dismissed Shanahan's claims he was in some way controlled, saying that 'the entire leadership of this agency are renegades who are juggernauts against convention.'
The position of surgeon general is described by the HHS as 'the nation's doctor,' tasked with 'providing Americans with the best scientific information available on how to improve their health and reduce the risk of illness and injury.'
But many within the mainstream medical profession have raised serious questions about Means' ability to fulfil this role, given the 37-year-old's lack of credentials.
Means has not held an active license to practise medicine since 2019 and despite calling herself a 'former surgeon' on her LinkedIn, Means never completed her surgical training at Oregon Health and Science University, dropping out a bit over four years into a five-year residency.
Means is also a proponent of 'functional medicine,' a holistic approach to medicine which is viewed by many as pseudoscience because of the lack of robust scientific evidence to back up treatments and claims.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, Means wrote on Twitter that 'many (if not most) COVID-19 deaths could be prevented w optimal metabolic health.' In an op-ed published by The Hill during the height of the pandemic, Means appeared to put the blame for people's deaths on their poor dietary choices, calling COVID-19 'a Darwinian moment for America' and adding that 'Americans must build personal immunity defenses through radical changes in diet and exercise, or risk getting sick and dying.'
She also appears to be against hormonal birth control, telling Tucker Carlson that suppressing the menstrual cycle reflects 'a disrespect of life.'
And despite the anger of leading anti-vaccine activists, Means has repeatedly voiced fringe and disproven views on the topic.
In May, in her newsletter, Means appeared to suggest childhood vaccines are linked to autism, which is not true. 'There is growing evidence that the total burden of the current extreme and growing vaccine schedule is causing health declines in vulnerable children,' she wrote, linking to a blog about vaccines and autism. 'This needs to be investigated.'
In November, responding to criticism about her failure to speak more about vaccines, Means wrote on X: 'I have said innumerable times publicly I think vaccine mandates are criminal.'
Means has promoted her sister-in-law's raw smoothie company. Raw milk is a topic she appears to be passionate about. 'When it comes to a question like raw milk, I want to be free to form a relationship with a local farmer, understand his integrity, look him in the eyes, pet his cow, and then decide if I feel safe to drink the milk from his farm,' she's said. The Food and Drug Administration says raw milk contains dangerous bacteria that 'are responsible for causing numerous foodborne illnesses.'
Means has also repeatedly documented her embrace of decidedly non-scientific treatments and idiosyncratic views of the role physicians should play in patients' treatment. In a newsletter last year, she claimed that the body was a 'radio receiver' to commune with a higher power and that a doctor's role was not to simply treat diseases, but to be 'a steward of the physical body, to be a guide in the process of building a functional material body that is unimpaired by chronic illness and can then reach its highest purpose of gaining a clearer signal to God.'
For the anti-vaccine community, however, Means' nomination is a surefire sign that a conspiracy is afoot, whether you support her nomination or not.
In one particularly illuminating interaction on X on Thursday, Robert Malone, a doctor who claimed to have helped invent the mRNA vaccine before pushing vaccine conspiracy theories, defended Means by claiming there was a secret campaign underway to disrupt her appointment.
'Big pharma and big Ag are throwing money behind the conservative influencers as well as bots throwing dirt on Dr. Casey Means,' Malone wrote. 'There are WAY too many comments coming in on this topic in opposition to this SG appointment. It reeks of bot farm activity.'
In response, fellow anti-vaccine activist Naomi Wolf, who has compared the COVID-19 vaccine to mass murder, hit back, writing that she was not a bot and that Means was 'bad news' and her nomination had all the hallmarks of a 'Silicon Valley astroturf' campaign.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Washington Post
20 minutes ago
- Washington Post
What to know about Trump's deployment of National Guard troops to LA protests
President Donald Trump says he's deploying 2,000 California National Guard troops to Los Angeles to respond to immigration protests , over the objections of California Gov. Gavin Newsom. It's not the first time Trump has activated the National Guard to quell protests. In 2020, he asked governors of several states to send troops to Washington, D.C. to respond to demonstrations that arose after George Floyd was killed by Minneapolis police officers. Many of the governors he asked agreed, sending troops to the federal district. The governors that refused the request were allowed to do so, keeping their troops on home soil. This time, however, Trump is acting in opposition to Newsom, who under normal circumstances would retain control and command of California's National Guard. While Trump said that federalizing the troops was necessary to 'address the lawlessness' in California, the Democratic governor said the move was 'purposely inflammatory and will only escalate tensions.' Here are some things to know about when and how the president can deploy troops on U.S. soil. Generally, federal military forces are not allowed to carry out civilian law enforcement duties against U.S. citizens except in times of emergency. An 18th-century wartime law called the Insurrection Act is the main legal mechanism that a president can use to activate the military or National Guard during times of rebellion or unrest. But Trump didn't invoke the Insurrection Act on Saturday. Instead, he relied on a similar federal law that allows the president to federalize National Guard troops under certain circumstances. The National Guard is a hybrid entity that serves both state and federal interests. Often it operates under state command and control, using state funding. Sometimes National Guard troops will be assigned by their state to serve federal missions, remaining under state command but using federal funding. The law cited by Trump's proclamation places National Guard troops under federal command. The law says that can be done under three circumstances: When the U.S. is invaded or in danger of invasion; when there is a rebellion or danger of rebellion against the authority of the U.S. government, or when the President is unable to 'execute the laws of the United States,' with regular forces. But the law also says that orders for those purposes 'shall be issued through the governors of the States.' It's not immediately clear if the president can activate National Guard troops without the order of that state's governor. Notably, Trump's proclamation says the National Guard troops will play a supporting role by protecting ICE officers as they enforce the law, rather than having the troops perform law enforcement work. Steve Vladeck, a professor at the Georgetown University Law Center who specializes in military justice and national security law, says that's because the National Guard troops can't legally engage in ordinary law enforcement activities unless Trump first invokes the Insurrection Act. Vladeck said the move raises the risk that the troops could end up using force while filling that 'protection' role. The move could also be a precursor to other, more aggressive troop deployments down the road, he wrote on his website . 'There's nothing these troops will be allowed to do that, for example, the ICE officers against whom these protests have been directed could not do themselves,' Vladeck wrote. The Insurrection Act and related laws were used during the Civil Rights era to protect activists and students desegregating schools. President Dwight Eisenhower sent the 101st Airborne to Little Rock, Arkansas, to protect Black students integrating Central High School after that state's governor activated the National Guard to keep the students out. George H.W. Bush used the Insurrection Act to respond to riots in Los Angeles in 1992 after the acquittal of white police officers who were videotaped beating Black motorist Rodney King. National Guard troops have been deployed for a variety of emergencies, including the COVID pandemic, hurricanes and other natural disasters. But generally, those deployments are carried out with the agreements of the governors of the responding states. In 2020, Trump asked governors of several states to deploy their National Guard troops to Washington, D.C. to quell protests that arose after George Floyd was killed by Minneapolis police officers. Many of the governors agreed, sending troops to the federal district. At the time, Trump also threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act for protests following Floyd's death in Minneapolis – an intervention rarely seen in modern American history. But then-Defense Secretary Mark Esper pushed back , saying the law should be invoked 'only in the most urgent and dire of situations.' Trump never did invoke the Insurrection Act during his first term. But while campaigning for his second term, he suggested that would change. Trump told an audience in Iowa in 2023 that he was prevented from using the military to suppress violence in cities and states during his first term, and said if the issue came up again in his next term, 'I'm not waiting.' Trump also promised to deploy the National Guard to help carry out his immigration enforcement goals , and his top adviser Stephen Miller explained how that would be carried out: Troops under sympathetic Republican governors would send troops to nearby states that refuse to participate, Miller said on 'The Charlie Kirk Show,' in 2023. After Trump announced he was federalizing the National Guard troops on Saturday, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said other measures could follow. Hegseth wrote on the social media platform X that active duty Marines at Camp Pendleton were on high alert and would also be mobilized 'if violence continues.'
Yahoo
27 minutes ago
- Yahoo
South Dakota is on track to spend $2 billion on prisons in the next decade
SIOUX FALLS, S.D. (AP) — Two years after approving a tough-on-crime sentencing law, South Dakota is scrambling to deal with the price tag for that legislation: Housing thousands of additional inmates could require up to $2 billion to build new prisons in the next decade. That's a lot of money for a state with one of the lowest populations in the U.S., but a consultant said it's needed to keep pace with an anticipated 34% surge of new inmates in the next decade as a result of South Dakota's tough criminal justice laws. And while officials are grumbling about the cost, they don't seem concerned with the laws that are driving the need even as national crime rates are dropping. 'Crime has been falling everywhere in the country, with historic drops in crime in the last year or two,' said Bob Libal, senior campaign strategist at the criminal justice nonprofit The Sentencing Project. 'It's a particularly unusual time to be investing $2 billion in prisons.' Some Democratic-led states have worked to close prisons and enact changes to lower inmate populations, but that's a tough sell in Republican-majority states such as South Dakota that believe in a tough-on-crime approach, even if that leads to more inmates. The South Dakota State Penitentiary For now, state lawmakers have set aside a $600 million fund to replace the overcrowded 144-year-old South Dakota State Penitentiary in Sioux Falls, making it one of the most expensive taxpayer-funded projects in South Dakota history. But South Dakota will likely need more prisons. Phoenix-based Arrington Watkins Architects, which the state hired as a consultant, has said South Dakota will need 3,300 additional beds in coming years, bringing the cost to $2 billion. Driving up costs is the need for facilities with different security levels to accommodate the inmate population. Concerns about South Dakota's prisons first arose four years ago, when the state was flush with COVID-19 relief funds. Lawmakers wanted to replace the penitentiary, but they couldn't agree on where to put the prison and how big it should be. A task force of state lawmakers assembled by Republican Gov. Larry Rhoden is expected to decide that in a plan for prison facilities this July. Many lawmakers have questioned the proposed cost, but few have called for criminal justice changes that would make such a large prison unnecessary. 'One thing I'm trying to do as the chairman of this task force is keep us very focused on our mission,' said Lieutenant Gov. Tony Venhuizen. 'There are people who want to talk about policies in the prisons or the administration or the criminal justice system more broadly, and that would be a much larger project than the fairly narrow scope that we have.' South Dakota's laws mean more people are in prison South Dakota's incarceration rate of 370 per 100,000 people is an outlier in the Upper Midwest. Neighbors Minnesota and North Dakota have rates of under 250 per 100,000 people, according to the Sentencing Project, a criminal justice advocacy nonprofit. Nearly half of South Dakota's projected inmate population growth can be attributed to a law approved in 2023 that requires some violent offenders to serve the full-length of their sentences before parole, according to a report by Arrington Watkins. When South Dakota inmates are paroled, about 40% are ordered to return to prison, the majority of those due to technical violations such as failing a drug test or missing a meeting with a parole officer. Those returning inmates made up nearly half of prison admissions in 2024. Sioux Falls criminal justice attorney Ryan Kolbeck blamed the high number of parolees returning in part on the lack of services in prison for people with drug addictions. 'People are being sent to the penitentiary but there's no programs there for them. There's no way it's going to help them become better people,' he said. 'Essentially we're going to put them out there and house them for a little bit, leave them on parole and expect them to do well.' South Dakota also has the second-greatest disparity of Native Americans in its prisons. While Native Americans make up one-tenth of South Dakota's population, they make up 35% of those in state prisons, according to Prison Policy Initiative, a nonprofit public policy group. Though legislators in the state capital, Pierre, have been talking about prison overcrowding for years, they're reluctant to dial back on tough-on-crime laws. For example, it took repeated efforts over six years before South Dakota reduced a controlled substance ingestion law to a misdemeanor from a felony for the first offense, aligning with all other states. 'It was a huge, Herculean task to get ingestion to be a misdemeanor,' Kolbeck said. Former penitentiary warden Darin Young said the state needs to upgrade its prisons, but he also thinks it should spend up to $300 million on addiction and mental illness treatment. 'Until we fix the reasons why people come to prison and address that issue, the numbers are not going to stop,' he said. Without policy changes, the new prisons are sure to fill up, criminal justice experts agreed. 'We might be good for a few years, now that we've got more capacity, but in a couple years it'll be full again,' Kolbeck said. 'Under our policies, you're going to reach capacity again soon.'
Yahoo
27 minutes ago
- Yahoo
What to know about Trump's deployment of National Guard troops to LA protests
President Donald Trump says he's deploying 2,000 California National Guard troops to Los Angeles to respond to immigration protests, over the objections of California Gov. Gavin Newsom. It's not the first time Trump has activated the National Guard to quell protests. In 2020, he asked governors of several states to send troops to Washington, D.C. to respond to demonstrations that arose after George Floyd was killed by Minneapolis police officers. Many of the governors he asked agreed, sending troops to the federal district. The governors that refused the request were allowed to do so, keeping their troops on home soil. This time, however, Trump is acting in opposition to Newsom, who under normal circumstances would retain control and command of California's National Guard. While Trump said that federalizing the troops was necessary to 'address the lawlessness' in California, the Democratic governor said the move was 'purposely inflammatory and will only escalate tensions.' Here are some things to know about when and how the president can deploy troops on U.S. soil. The laws are a bit vague Generally, federal military forces are not allowed to carry out civilian law enforcement duties against U.S. citizens except in times of emergency. An 18th-century wartime law called the Insurrection Act is the main legal mechanism that a president can use to activate the military or National Guard during times of rebellion or unrest. But Trump didn't invoke the Insurrection Act on Saturday. Instead, he relied on a similar federal law that allows the president to federalize National Guard troops under certain circumstances. The National Guard is a hybrid entity that serves both state and federal interests. Often it operates under state command and control, using state funding. Sometimes National Guard troops will be assigned by their state to serve federal missions, remaining under state command but using federal funding. The law cited by Trump's proclamation places National Guard troops under federal command. The law says that can be done under three circumstances: When the U.S. is invaded or in danger of invasion; when there is a rebellion or danger of rebellion against the authority of the U.S. government, or when the President is unable to 'execute the laws of the United States,' with regular forces. But the law also says that orders for those purposes 'shall be issued through the governors of the States.' It's not immediately clear if the president can activate National Guard troops without the order of that state's governor. The role of the National Guard troops will be limited Notably, Trump's proclamation says the National Guard troops will play a supporting role by protecting ICE officers as they enforce the law, rather than having the troops perform law enforcement work. Steve Vladeck, a professor at the Georgetown University Law Center who specializes in military justice and national security law, says that's because the National Guard troops can't legally engage in ordinary law enforcement activities unless Trump first invokes the Insurrection Act. Vladeck said the move raises the risk that the troops could end up using force while filling that 'protection' role. The move could also be a precursor to other, more aggressive troop deployments down the road, he wrote on his website. 'There's nothing these troops will be allowed to do that, for example, the ICE officers against whom these protests have been directed could not do themselves,' Vladeck wrote. Troops have been mobilized before The Insurrection Act and related laws were used during the Civil Rights era to protect activists and students desegregating schools. President Dwight Eisenhower sent the 101st Airborne to Little Rock, Arkansas, to protect Black students integrating Central High School after that state's governor activated the National Guard to keep the students out. George H.W. Bush used the Insurrection Act to respond to riots in Los Angeles in 1992 after the acquittal of white police officers who were videotaped beating Black motorist Rodney King. National Guard troops have been deployed for a variety of emergencies, including the COVID pandemic, hurricanes and other natural disasters. But generally, those deployments are carried out with the agreements of the governors of the responding states. Trump is willing to use the military on home soil In 2020, Trump asked governors of several states to deploy their National Guard troops to Washington, D.C. to quell protests that arose after George Floyd was killed by Minneapolis police officers. Many of the governors agreed, sending troops to the federal district. At the time, Trump also threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act for protests following Floyd's death in Minneapolis – an intervention rarely seen in modern American history. But then-Defense Secretary Mark Esper pushed back, saying the law should be invoked 'only in the most urgent and dire of situations.' Trump never did invoke the Insurrection Act during his first term. But while campaigning for his second term, he suggested that would change. Trump told an audience in Iowa in 2023 that he was prevented from using the military to suppress violence in cities and states during his first term, and said if the issue came up again in his next term, 'I'm not waiting.' Trump also promised to deploy the National Guard to help carry out his immigration enforcement goals, and his top adviser Stephen Miller explained how that would be carried out: Troops under sympathetic Republican governors would send troops to nearby states that refuse to participate, Miller said on 'The Charlie Kirk Show,' in 2023. After Trump announced he was federalizing the National Guard troops on Saturday, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said other measures could follow. Hegseth wrote on the social media platform X that active duty Marines at Camp Pendleton were on high alert and would also be mobilized 'if violence continues.'
