CDC nominee Susan Monarez sidesteps questions about disagreements with RFK in Senate hearing
Susan Monarez, President Donald Trump 's pick to lead the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, told senators Wednesday that she values vaccines, public health interventions and rigorous scientific evidence, but largely sidestepped questions about widespread cuts to the agency, elimination of programs and whether she disagreed with any of Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s actions to date.
'The secretary is doing the important work of leading a complex agency,' Monarez told members of a Senate health committee that will decide whether to advance her nomination.
Monarez, 50, is the first nominee for CDC director to require Senate confirmation. She was named acting director in January and the nominee for the post in March after Trump abruptly withdrew his first choice, David Weldon. Monarez is the former director of a federal biomedical research agency and a respected scientist, though she would be the first nonphysician to lead the CDC in decades.
Monarez repeatedly said she had not been involved in decisions earlier this year to cut hundreds of staff and eliminate CDC programs, but that she would work to retain the agency's core functions and transition key programs to other parts of the Health and Human Services department.
Her answers appeared to frustrate some senators, including Virginia Democrat Tim Kaine, who said he had no questions about her qualifications.
'I've got questions about your willingness to follow through on your values,' he said.
In the two-hour hearing, Monarez was sharply questioned about Kennedy's recent move to fire all 17 members of a crucial committee that evaluates and recommends vaccines, his downplaying of the risks of measles during a nationwide outbreak and staffing cuts to a program that investigates lead poisoning in children.
Sen. Bill Cassidy, a Louisiana Republican who is chairman of the committee, sought assurances about the scientific integrity of the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, which was reconstituted by Kennedy to include vaccine skeptics.
'Someone can speak as a critic, but there should be someone who's reviewing the overwhelming evidence of the safety of vaccines,' Cassidy said.
Monarez said she strongly supported public health interventions, including immunizations, saying, 'I think vaccines save lives."
'The ACIP has a very vital role to play,' she added. 'And it must make sure that it is using science and evidence to drive that decision-making.'
She vowed to prioritize innovation, 'evidence-based rapid decision-making' and clear communication at the $9.2 billion agency tasked with evaluating vaccines, monitoring diseases and watching for threats to Americans' health.
Monarez declined to say whether she had disagreed with any of Kennedy's decisions regarding the agency to date, saying he has 'laid out a very clear vision.'
'I think he has prioritized key public health activities for preventing chronic diseases," she added.
If Monarez is confirmed, it would end a stretch of confusion at the Atlanta-based CDC, where, for months, it wasn't clear who was running the agency. The acting director's role was filled in part by Matthew Buzzelli, the CDC's chief of staff who is a lawyer and political appointee with no medical experience.
Monarez holds doctorate in microbiology and immunology from the University of Wisconsin, and her postdoctoral training was in microbiology and immunology at Stanford University.
At CDC headquarters in Atlanta, employees have said Monarez was rarely heard from between late January and late March, when Trump nominated her.
The CDC was created nearly 80 years ago to prevent the spread of malaria in the U.S. Its mission was later expanded, and it gradually became a global leader on infectious and chronic diseases and a go-to source of health information.
___
The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute's Department of Science Education and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BBC News
8 minutes ago
- BBC News
The Documentary Podcast Inside the US trans military ban
One of the first executive orders that President Donald Trump signed in his second term of office stated that being transgender is incompatible with the 'rigorous standards necessary for military service'. It set the stage for a ban on trans people serving in the military, regardless of ability, rank or service history. Official figures say there are 4,240 transgender service members in the US armed forces, however research commissioned by the US Defense Department in 2016 estimated there could be up to around 10,000. Over the past four months the BBC has been following the stories of two trans service people as the executive order took effect. Both have served 17 years in the military, and are now facing the threat of a dishonourable discharge. Archive sources: NBC News, FOX News, CBS News, CNN, Chicks on the Right, Newsmax, 9 News, WKYC, ABC News, US Army's School of Advanced Military Studies
Spectator
9 minutes ago
- Spectator
Is the Met finally getting tough on pro-Palestine protests?
It was airily pleasant to walk round Parliament Square on Monday morning. I had come up to London to go to parliament and to interview Kemi Badenoch at a Policy Exchange event across the square. Palestine Action had announced a protest march against Donald Trump's and Israel's 'genocide' for that time. Although the Met had banned it from the area, I had recently witnessed so many ill-contained and threatening protests there – almost all for Palestinian causes – that I fully expected delay, disruption and occasional harassment. This time, however, it turned out that the Met meant business. The protest was well-contained in the designated streets round Trafalgar Square. May this mark the permanent change many of us have long been calling for. The delightful absence of trouble that day brought home to me how oppressive those past protests had become. The Met's blind commitment to 'the right to protest' effectively ceded control of the streets, public spaces and Tube stations, giving the extremists a preposterous media salience. That right kept cancelling more important rights – those of MPs, peers and parliamentary staff to get on with their work and of the ordinary public to attend parliament as they please or go about their normal business. The constant threat to the security of parliament has increasingly cut it off, created ugly physical barriers and intimidated the parliamentary authorities. By besieging parliament, you subtly delegitimate it. The Met Commissioner, Sir Mark Rowley, justified his new toughness by saying that Palestine Action is 'an organised extremist criminal group', as witness the expensive damage it claims to have done to RAF planes at Brize Norton. It is, but he could have said much the same 18 months ago of the endless semi-violent anti-Semitic elements which so often march against Israel without a word to say against Hamas's 7 October massacres or Iran's bomb. Theirs have not been what Sir Mark calls 'protests of a different character' from those of Palestine Action. They have been cut from the same keffiyeh. He says the charges against Palestine Action 'represent a form of extremism that I believe the overwhelming majority of the public reject'. What forms of extremism do the overwhelming majority not reject? Anyway, there is joy over the sinner that repenteth. If Palestine Action is to be proscribed, this is the time to pursue its other boasted achievements. In March last year, in my Cambridge college, Trinity, it claimed responsibility for the slashing and spray-painting of de Laszlo's portrait of Arthur Balfour, prime minister, chancellor of Cambridge University and author of the Balfour Declaration. The incident was filmed and posted by the perpetrators, but a year later the police said that 'the investigation has now been filed'. It is hard to believe that these outrages are untraceable, once you identify their Islamist/far-left political motivation and therefore know where to look. By chance, it is 50 years ago this autumn that I matriculated at Trinity. There is a half-century dinner there next month for all of us, but not for me, due to a clerical error in the college's email records. This error has now been corrected with a vengeance and I have since received eight invitations to the Trinity Giving Days in which alumni contribute to bursaries. What is more exciting, however, is that the period in question has also been marked in verse. Four years ago, I drew attention (see Notes, 10 July 2021) to The Examined Life, James Harpur's book of poetry about his time at Cranleigh, his public school in Surrey, which in its 160-year existence has achieved respectability rather than celebrity and is therefore a tricky subject for the muse. The book was a brilliant success, doing what good poetry does uniquely well – suggesting the general from the minutely observed particular. Now Harpur has done this again with Trinity, where he was a year below me, in a new volume called The Magic Theatre. Cambridge has been the subject of rather more poems than Cranleigh, so the bar is higher. But I think Harpur clears it. In my first year at Trinity, I was thrilled to hear that the set I was sharing with Oliver Letwin – G3 New Court – was the same to which Tennyson returns in 'In Memoriam'. It had been occupied by his beloved Arthur Hallam, whom the poem mourns: Up that long walk of limes I past To see the rooms in which he dwelt. Another name was on the door: I linger'd; all within was noise Of songs, and clapping hands, and boys That crash'd the glass and beat the floor; Where once we held debate, a band Of youthful friends, on mind and art, And labour, and the changing mart, And all the framework of the land; When one would aim an arrow fair, But send it slackly from the string; And one would pierce an outer ring, And one an inner, here and there; And last the master-bowman, he, Would cleave the mark.' That could have been an exact description of Oliver's debating prowess, displayed in those very rooms. The trouble with 'In Memoriam', however, is that such exactness is mostly absent. It is a great poem, but more about grief and 'the unquiet heart' ('in words, like weeds, I'll wrap me o'er') than one rooted in the specific. In this sense, I get more out of Harpur's Cambridge than Tennyson's. Whether he writes about revising or punting or amateur acting ('the tinnitus of humiliation') or lost love, he places his young self in those strange three years granted to you in that (then) small town where your life is more imagined than real, and the better for it. On one tiny point I must correct James Harpur. In a poem which turns out to be about me, I have 'a sleeve of navy velvet'. No; it was only corduroy. We were poor students, after all.
Spectator
10 minutes ago
- Spectator
We should welcome regime change in Iran
On the first night of what Donald Trump has called the '12-day war' between Israel and Iran, someone spray-painted a message in Farsi on a wall in Tehran: 'Thank you, Israel. Hit the regime hard – and leave the rest to us.' That graffiti encapsulated the feelings of many millions of Iranians. If you doubt this, you can read (in translation from Farsi) opposition accounts such as ManotoOfficial and IranIntlTV on Instagram or Telegram, which in the past two weeks have been posting countless messages and comments in support of Israel. These accounts are widely seen by people inside Iran, who use VPNs to get around the regime's online censorship systems. Or you can look at footage from the demonstrations in London and across the world in recent days where Iranians in exile have waved Israeli flags alongside pre-revolutionary Iranian flags, and chanted their support for Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu. By contrast, as one Iranian woman put it to me: 'At the pro-Iranian government rally in London last weekend, not a single Iranian joined these left-wing British demonstrators.' What you should not do, however, is give much credence to the Islamic regime apologists wheeled out by the BBC and other British media. These are the same kind of 'experts' who were until recently invited on to news programmes and panel discussions to argue that Syrians wanted to see Bashar al-Assad remain in power. The kind who in an earlier era downplayed the crimes of the Soviet Union. The vast majority of Iranians are eager for a change of government. Such a change will almost certainly lead to a marked reduction in radical Shiism and in turn to a reduction in the radical Sunnism which grew as a counter-reaction to the 1979 Iranian revolution and has given rise to groups such as al-Qaeda and Isis. Indeed, the fall of the Iranian regime may speed up the decline of Islamism worldwide. The Iranian regime has already been greatly weakened by a series of counter-revolutionary protests, from the 2009 Green Movement to the more recent 'Women, Life, Freedom' uprising. And now, with millions of Iranians quietly and not so quietly celebrating the Israeli attacks on regime henchmen and on its hated Basij militia, which enforces internal security, the pressure for regime change may come from inside. And we should welcome it, not fear it. No one is talking about US or Israeli troops invading or occupying Iran. But we shouldn't try to thwart change and prop up the regime, as Barack Obama was accused of doing during the pro-democracy protests in 2009. Whether the regime falls remains to be seen. But for now, the campaign against Iran has been a triumph for Trump and even more so for Netanyahu. The campaign against Iran's nuclear weapons programme and the missile systems developed to deliver nuclear warheads has been compared with Israel's victory in the 1967 war when this tiny, outnumbered and outgunned democracy overcame three invading Arab armies in just six days. Three days after the 7 October massacre, an official I spoke to said that Netanyahu made a strategic decision to go methodically piece by piece against each component of the Iranian axis: Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, the Assad regime and finally Iran and its nuclear programme and its tens of thousands of ballistic missiles. Incredibly, there are still regime propagandists in the West who peddle the lie that Iran's nuclear programme is for the development of energy, not weapons. Does anyone seriously think that the Iranian regime – whose stated goal is to commit genocide against Israel and others – has spent tens of billions of dollars building one of the world's most heavily fortified sites buried deep under a mountain, in which far more uranium has already been enriched than could possibly be needed for civil purposes, for any other reason than to build nuclear weapons? Does anyone seriously believe that the regime in Tehran, which has been known to beat women to death for not wearing a hijab and hang gay men from cranes, would give up its decades-long quest for nuclear weapons merely because the likes of David Lammy or Emmanuel Macron ask it nicely to do so? Israelis certainly do not. Nor do Arabs. Had the international community allowed Iran's regime to acquire nuclear weapons, it would have sparked a nuclear arms race. Several Arab states, as well as Turkey, have made it clear that they would be left with little choice but to pursue nuclear weapons programmes of their own. They don't worry that Israel will use nuclear weapons, except as a very last resort. They do, however, fear Iran. Some European countries whose people have lived under tyrannies not so dissimilar from Iran's are under no illusions either. They immediately declared their full support for Israel's campaign against Iran's nukes. The Czech government and opposition both did so, as did Germany's Chancellor Friedrich Merz. As did Ukraine, where they know what it is like to be on the receiving end of Iranian drones. By contrast, the British and French governments have shown the world just how insipid they have become, issuing vapid platitudes and calling for a premature ceasefire that would have left Iran's nuclear programme largely intact. In case it hasn't sunk in, Britain is also a target of the mullahs. Crowds bussed into Tehran from the countryside each week (many paid by the regime) are instructed to chant not just 'Death to America' and 'Death to Israel' but also 'Death to Britain'. Too often, what starts with Israel soon affects the rest of us: airline hijacking, suicide bombs and more. We should not rule out the possibility of Iranian missile attacks on western cities if the country's military capabilities are not kept in check. What kind of message does Britain's feeble response send to the world, including Islamists already operating within our borders? That Britain has neither the will nor the ability to defend itself. Likewise, desperate calls by British politicians for a premature ceasefire in Gaza, which would have left a still-armed Hamas in power to fight another day, would have all but removed the possibility of long-term peace between Palestinians and Israelis. Instead, an agreement to end the war in which Hamas agrees to disarm, and a peaceful Palestinian government can run Gaza, will be much easier to achieve now that Hamas's Iranian backers have been so severely weakened. Other European governments – notably Spain, Ireland and Belgium – have been even more outspoken in denouncing Israel, in effect backing the Iranian regime. There are disturbing echoes of Ireland's leaders sending their condolences to the Nazis after Hitler shot himself in 1945. We also have the usual voices in the West arguing that the strikes were ultimately futile because the Iranian regime will simply rebuild its nuclear programme so it can wreak fiery vengeance upon its enemies. Similar arguments were made in 1981 after Israel bombed Saddam Hussein's nuclear programme in Iraq, and in 2007 after Israel bombed Bashar al-Assad's nuclear programme in Syria. Neither Saddam nor Assad managed to rebuild. Another nonsensical argument being advanced after Tuesday's ceasefire is that a wounded and vengeful Iran may seek to destabilise the region. Who do these pundits think has already been destabilising the region all these years? Who destabilised Lebanon through the Hezbollah militia, which is effectively a subsidiary of Iran's Revolutionary Guard? Which country has destabilised Yemen, leading to millions of deaths through war and famine? Who destabilised Syria by bringing in thousands of heavily armed Shia militia to provide the core of Assad's army, driving millions of Syria's majority Sunni population into exile across Europe? And who gave arms and training to Hamas to carry out the biggest massacre against Jews since the Holocaust? In all cases, Iran. We should be thankful to Trump (who defied his critics in America on both left and right) and Netanyahu for holding back this expansionist Iranian regime. Arab leaders are. Hamas and Hezbollah have been cut down to size by Israel. Now there is at least the prospect for a better situation in Gaza, Lebanon, Syria and elsewhere. President Obama was awarded the 2009 Nobel peace prize in his very first year in office, yet in his two terms he achieved precisely zero peace deals. In 2016 alone, Obama dropped 26,172 bombs on seven different countries, according to the Council on Foreign Relations. Yet he is still spoken of in the loftiest tones by the liberal establishment on both sides of the Atlantic as a great peacemaker. Trump and Netanyahu, by contrast, are regularly condemned as war criminals and threatened with all kinds of legal action. Yet they have signed four peace deals as part of the Abraham Accords, which, thanks in part to their actions against Iran, may now expand to include Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Arab world. They have demonstrated a simple lesson, one that Britain should have learnt from Churchill: a genuine peace sometimes requires the West's enemies to be defeated, not accommodated.
