Trump Said New Surgeon General Pick Could Be 'One of the Finest' in History. The Next Day, He Said 'I Don't Know Her'
On Wednesday, May 7, President Donald Trump announced that he was nominating Dr. Casey Means to be the new U.S. surgeon general, replacing his initial pick.
The nomination quickly drew scrutiny as Means is a wellness influencer who did not finish her medical residency and does not currently have a valid medical license.
Despite touting Means' qualifications on Truth Social, Trump told reporters the following day that he doesn't know her.President Donald Trump recently announced a change of plans in his administration, withdrawing his previous nomination of Dr. Janette Nesheiwat as surgeon general and naming her replacement.
On Wednesday, May 7, the president's Truth Social account revealed his new nomination of Dr. Casey Means, a medical professional and wellness influencer, who is closely linked to the 'Make America Healthy Again' ideology espoused by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
'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's post read. "Her academic achievements, together with her life's work, are absolutely outstanding.'
'Dr. Casey Means has the potential to be one of the finest Surgeon Generals in United States History," the post continued.
However, less than 24 hours after Trump's Truth Social post, the president backtracked when faced with questions about Means' qualifications.
On Thursday morning, an Oval Office reporter asked Trump, 'You just announced a new nominee for the U.S. surgeon general who never finished her residency and is not a practicing physician. Can you explain why you picked her to be America's top doctor?'
"Because Bobby thought she was fantastic," he answered, referring to RFK Jr.
"I don't know her," he added.
While Means completed her undergraduate degree and medical school at Stanford University, she never finished her surgical residency. In her book, Good Energy, and in public appearances, Means has said that her residency experience left her disillusioned with the state of modern medicine.
Ultimately, she did complete enough postgraduate work to qualify for a medical license in Oregon, and turned to alternative medicine. Her website purports her ultimate goal to be 'working towards a healthier and happier planet by empowering people to understand their health and the limitless potential within them.'
It remains to be seen, however, if Means' nomination will hold up to congressional scrutiny — particularly given that her medical license has been inactive since January 2024, according to Oregon public records.
Means clearly has a strong supporter in RFK Jr., who took to X on Thursday with a lengthy defense against Means' critics.
'The attacks that Casey is unqualified because she left the medical system completely miss the point of what we are trying to accomplish with MAHA,' he wrote. 'Casey is the perfect choice for Surgeon General precisely because she left the traditional medical system--not in spite of it.'
Never miss a story — sign up for to stay up-to-date on the best of what PEOPLE has to offer, from celebrity news to compelling human interest stories.
Kennedy then accused the medical industry and media outlets of paying influencers to "vilify" Means, adding, "But it will not work."
'Every day, I wake up emboldened to drive change because I know the support of MAHA moms has my back," he wrote. "Casey has played an integral role in galvanizing these moms. She will be the best Surgeon General in American history."
Read the original article on People
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time Magazine
20 minutes ago
- Time Magazine
Big Data Can Make America Healthier. Here's How to Do It Right
Big data can help make Americans healthier, and the Trump Administration has stated—in its recently released Make America Healthy Again report and elsewhere—that building a national big-data platform is one of its primary goals. As scientists who use large data sets to study health, we're excited about its potential and the willingness of the federal government to invest in it, particularly since big data has been underutilized in the U.S. compared with other developed countries—and since the number of ways it can be used grows nearly daily. It's a huge opportunity. But there are lots of concerns when assembling sensitive health data and combining it with other sensitive data, like credit scores, tax records, employment, educational records, and more. Some of those concerns with the Administration's plans have already surfaced. The Administration's first goal of assembling big data to studying autism has left some worried that if used inappropriately, such data could lead to harm, rather than help, for those with autism. Others worry that big data could be used to perform and justify shoddy research that supports predetermined conclusions without adhering to rigorous scientific methods—a concern reinforced by the discovery that the Make America Healthy Again report cited non-existent sources to support its claims. So how can we reap the benefits of big data while minimizing its risks? Here are some guiding principles: 1. Link the highly siloed health care and government data we already have The health care system already possesses health data on millions of Americans. Medical records are now almost always digitized, permitting doctors' notes, medical imaging, laboratory tests, insurance claims, and more to be linked (in theory) across doctors' offices, hospitals, nursing homes, and any other place people receive care. However, data collected about a patient in one setting often doesn't get connected to data from other settings—making it hard for researchers to get a full picture of what, exactly, is happening to each of us within the larger health care system. The federal government also has data on us that can be connected to health care data to answer important questions. For example, comprehensive and detailed data on Americans' occupations linked with health, insurance, and other data could help shed more light on relationships between our work and our health—helping to better answer curious questions like why taxi drivers are less likely to die from Alzheimer's disease or why female physicians don't outlive their male colleagues. The first step of making big data more helpful is to simply link the data—which, while possible, is difficult to accomplish without centralized effort. Once linkages have been made, data can be anonymized so that those studying sensitive questions aren't privy to confidential information about specific individuals. 2. Create capacity for researchers to securely link to other valuable data In addition to governmental data, many other sources of data can provide insights into our health. For example, smartwatches not only have data on how our hearts are beating (e.g., they can identify abnormal heart rhythms like atrial fibrillation), but they can also identify subtle changes in mobility that might be predictive of early neuromuscular diseases like Parkinson's disease. Meanwhile, grocery stores have data on the foods we eat, and with increasing interest in how diet affects our lives, these data could be linked to detailed measures of health. Similarly, social-media platforms possess data that can offer insights into changes in our mental health, and through large-scale analysis of online photos could even identify, in real time, early visible markers of disease. These are moonshots, of course, and whether we want to use data in this way is an open question. But the potential to improve health could be large. Creating a way for scientists to link outside data to existing government and health data—while responsibly maintaining individual anonymity after the linkage—could open many novel research opportunities. 3. Invest in data-research infrastructure Keeping all of these data sources organized, secure, and accessible to scientists is a tall order. Researchers who use big data often dedicate substantial resources to finding the data they need, organizing it, and ensuring its accuracy; the better the database is maintained, the easier it is for researchers to actually perform their analyses. The secure online platform where Medicare and other government health care data are currently accessed has been described by researchers as 'tedious and prone to system errors' and in need of major improvements. Meanwhile, security concerns have led the government to stop letting researchers store the data on their own secure servers, the easiest and most cost-effective way to actually work with the data. Access to Medicare data by researchers has become prohibitively expensive, costing about $30,000 a year or more for a single user to work on one project using the online platform. Proposals to drastically cut medical research funding have been reported, and if passed, these research funding cuts will come at the cost of discoveries to improve health that will never be made. High-quality research of any kind requires investment, whether it's in a biology lab under a microscope or working with data on powerful computers. A new data platform is only as valuable as researchers' ability to access it in a functional and cost-effective way. Any roadmap to designing a national data platform that links together health care and other sensitive data must consider the many valid concerns about collecting data in the U.S., including privacy concerns and how data will be used. The Pew Research Center finds that large majorities of Americans say they are concerned about how the government uses data collected about them (71%), while also admitting that they have little to no understanding of what the government even does with such data (77%). Here are some strategies—in addition to many of the cybersecurity and privacy safeguards already in place—to both protect the data and help earn the public trust: 1. Strictly limit data access to vetted researchers Mistrust and unease with government data collection is readily traceable to historical abuse of Americans' data (as well as recent allegations of improper access), so it's not surprising that many are wary of the Trump Administration's plans. Ensuring data cannot be weaponized by the government against individuals is perhaps the single biggest barrier to creating a useful database, but it can be done. Those currently using federal health care data must already undergo training and comply with very high data-security standards. Misuse of the data—such as even attempting to figure out the identity of an anonymous individual in the data—or failure to protect patient privacy can lead to criminal penalties. A platform of sensitive data without well-delineated restrictions on who can use it and what they can use it for is a recipe for problems. Other ongoing efforts by the Administration to compile data under the vague goal of 'increasing government efficiency' have been met with pushback and lawsuits from organizations concerned about data being used against members of the public. 2. Require analytical plans and ethics-board approval up front Current use of federal health data also requires researchers to provide the government detailed plans to justify the use of specific data. This allows the government to ensure that no more data than is needed to answer the specific question is provided to researchers. Researchers must also obtain ethical approval from an Institutional Review Board prior to accessing and analyzing data, a second checkpoint. These boards, which exist in light of egregious failures of medical research ethics in the 20 th century, help ensure that analyses are designed to minimize risk to patients—even if it is only their data, and not their bodies, at risk. 3. Emphasize true transparency Transparency into who is using this sensitive data and what exactly they are doing with it can engender trust between researchers and the American public. Just like researchers already do for clinical trials, those accessing the data platform should specify their plans in advance, and those plans should be easily and publicly available. Transparency around which data were accessed and what computer code was used to analyze it not only promotes trust, but such data- and code-sharing practices among researchers make it easier to appraise the quality of the work, identify mistakes, and root out misconduct. We can only assume that Americans' unease with governmental data use stems from knowledge that, as with all powerful tools, linked data has the potential to be used in potentially harmful ways. But when in the hands of qualified scientists using rigorous scientific methods and privacy safeguards, a robust real-world data platform like this could lead to new discoveries about how all of us can lead healthier lives.
CNN
21 minutes ago
- CNN
A break in the trade clouds lifted consumers' spirits in May
Americans felt a whole lot better about prices and the job market in May, a month that featured a détente in the trade war between the US and China. Consumers' year-ahead expectations for inflation tumbled in May by 0.4 percentage points to 3.2%, according to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York's latest Survey of Consumer Expectations released Monday. It was the biggest monthly sinking of near-term inflation expectations since November 2022, when price hikes slowed much more than expected and the Federal Reserve delivered another heavy-handed effort to curb decades-high inflation. The May survey appeared to mark a more elated moment for consumers in the emotional roller coaster ride they've been on since President Donald Trump enacted sweeping actions, notably a frenetic domestic trade policy of escalating import taxes on many materials and products that come in to the US. Inflation expectations also declined (though not as sharply) at the three- and five-year time horizons, to 3% and 2.6%, respectively, New York Fed data showed. The Federal Reserve closely monitors gauges of near-, medium- and long-term inflation expectations as those could be self-fulfilling prophecies for consumers: If people think prices will be higher in the future, they might spend more now or even demand higher wages. In turn, businesses faced with higher costs might end up raising prices as a result. Economists wholly expect that high tariffs will result in higher prices for consumers, but how much and to what extent they become inflationary remains to be seen. The tariffs, and the fluctuating nature of Trump's negotiations, have driven uncertainty higher and sentiment to near-record lows. Consumers haven't just been anxious about higher prices, they're worried about jobs: The New York Fed's April survey, for example, showed that expectations for the unemployment rate to increase hit the highest level since the early days of the pandemic. Those fears have been quelled for now. In May, the mean perceived probability of the nation's jobless rate being higher than it is now dropped 3.3 percentage points to 40.8%. And people's own job security perceptions improved as well, with job separation expectations dropping 0.5 percentage points to 14.8%. Survey respondents also felt more optimistic about their chances of finding a job if they found themselves unemployed, and they also felt an inkling of improvement in their incomes rising (the median expected growth in household income nudged up by 0.1 percentage point to 2.7%). The May survey showed improvement across household finance expectations, including slightly better access to credit and less of a probability of a missed debt payment. Still, Monday's report showed that one pain point continues to be persistent for consumers: The grocery store run. The year-ahead expected change in food prices increased 0.4 percentage point to 5.5%, the highest rate since October 2023.
Axios
21 minutes ago
- Axios
California to sue Trump administration amid LA protest standoff, Newsom says
California Gov. Gavin Newsom said in a Monday post that California will sue President Trump, saying he "illegally acted" to federalize the National Guard during protests against federal immigration enforcement in Los Angeles. The big picture: Trump on Saturday signed a memorandum calling in the National Guard — despite opposition from the state's and the city's Democratic leadership. Driving the news: Newsom, after saying Sunday that the Golden State would be taking Trump to court, wrote in a Monday X post that the president had "flamed the fires." He added, "The order he signed doesn't just apply to CA. It will allow him to go into ANY STATE and do the same thing. We're suing him." Trump's order cited "[n]umerous incidents of violence and disorder" and "violent protests" but did not specifically mention California or the Los Angeles area. The other side:"Gavin Newsom's feckless leadership is directly responsible for the lawless riots and violent attacks on law enforcement in Los Angeles," White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said in a statement provided to Axios. Jackson continued, "Instead of filing baseless lawsuits meant to score political points with his left-wing base, Newsom should focus on protecting Americans by restoring law and order to his state." Friction point: Newsom, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass and other Democrats have argued Trump's deployment of the National Guard was an unnecessary escalation, while Trump administration officials have railed against their leadership. Border czar Tom Homan did not rule out arrests for Democratic officials in the state should they impede law enforcement or harbor undocumented immigrants in a Saturday interview with NBC News, but said he does not believe Bass had "crossed the line yet." "Come and get me, though guy," Newsom wrote in response. Homan, in a Monday morning interview on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" argued the NBC report was "dishonest." "I was clear they haven't crossed the line," Homan said Monday. "But they're not above the law either." Zoom in: Hegseth in his Monday post included a clip from an interview with commentator Brian Tyler Cohen in which the governor described Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth as "a joke" and characterized Trump as "unhinged." "This is a preview for things to come," he said. "This isn't about LA, per se. It's about us today, it's about you, everyone watching, tomorrow." Context: Trump's Saturday memorandum, which called into federal service some 2,000 National Guard personnel for 60 days, cited rarely used federal powers and sidestepped Newsom.
