logo
There's one vice RFK Jr. isn't talking about

There's one vice RFK Jr. isn't talking about

Politicoa day ago

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has made it his mission to remind Americans that they need to get off the couch and lay off the junk food. But there's one vice he's not talking about: smoking.
That's troubled anti-smoking activists, researchers who focus on the diseases tobacco causes and Democrats in Congress who point out that smoking, despite a marked decline in recent years, still leads to more preventable deaths than anything else.
Even so, Kennedy didn't mention the health impacts of smoking once in last month's Make America Healthy Again report assessing the biggest threats to Americans' health. That marks a turning point from the priorities of public health officials going back decades, including the Biden administration's, which targeted smoking as part of a moonshot plan to halve cancer death rates. Anti-tobacco advocates fear deemphasizing the dangers of tobacco could slow or even halt progress in driving down smoking rates.
'Attempting to combat chronic disease without tobacco control is like attempting a triathlon without a bicycle,' said Brian King, whom Kennedy pushed out of his job as the Food and Drug Administration's top tobacco regulator in April. 'You're destined for failure before leaving the starting line.'
Since President Donald Trump's inauguration, his health agencies appear to have shelved two moves King planned to combat smoking, banning the last remaining legal cigarette flavoring, menthol, and requiring companies to reduce the amount of nicotine in their products. Nicotine is what makes cigarettes addictive.
But an HHS spokesperson said the department 'remains steadfast in its mission to protect and promote public health,' adding that the MAHA report is not an 'exhaustive inventory of every HHS program or public health challenge.'
'HHS agencies continue to carry out their responsibilities, including work on tobacco control, with the highest level of integrity and commitment to the American public,' the spokesperson said.
A sustained public health campaign to educate Americans about smoking's risks over decades has driven a huge decrease in use. In the 1960s, more than 4 in 10 adults smoked cigarettes. Now it's fewer than 1 in 8. And the public health success among kids is even starker. Fewer than 1 in 26 now smoke cigarettes, according to an analysis of federal data.
The negative health impacts of tobacco use are well-studied and vast. For years it has been the top preventable cause of death in the United States, contributing to cancer, heart disease and stroke.
But when Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) quizzed Kennedy about that during a budget hearing last month, asking him to name the 'No. 1 cause of preventable death in America today,' Kennedy was stumped.
'I'm not sure what you're talking about,' he said.
Kennedy's apparent lack of interest in combating smoking — the word 'tobacco' appears in the MAHA report only within the context of his concerns about food marketing while 'smoking' and 'cigarettes' are never mentioned — also suggests this Trump administration won't be like the first.
Then, Trump's FDA commissioner, Scott Gottlieb, put the menthol ban and the limits on nicotine on the table, drawing applause from anti-smoking activists.
Congress permitted the agency to make those moves in a 2009 law. That law banned flavorings except menthol — which is a cash cow for Marlboro cigarette maker Philip Morris, whose support helped get the law passed — but gave the FDA the power to decide whether to ban it. It also gave the agency the power to force cigarette companies to reduce nicotine levels.
The Obama administration didn't do so. President Joe Biden proposed limiting nicotine levels after the 2024 election but never finalized the rule. A Biden plan to ban menthol cigarettes in 2022 was also not finalized.
Menthol is popular among Black smokers and some Democrats feared a ban could alienate crucial voters in a presidential election year.
Jerome Adams, who was surgeon general during the first Trump term, said he wants Kennedy to prioritize the tobacco regulations laid out in Gottlieb's tobacco regulation plan — an effort he said would benefit youth and marginalized communities that are disproportionately impacted by menthol cigarettes.
'These proposed regulations align with the MAHA movement's focus on preventing chronic diseases,' Adams said.
The tobacco industry spent heavily on Trump's 2024 campaign — and already has a lot to show for it.
Trump pledged to 'save' vaping on his social media site, Truth Social, in September after meeting with Vapor Technology Association Executive Director Tony Abboud.
The Trump administration pushed King — whom the tobacco industry had criticized for years — out of his job leading the FDA's Center for Tobacco Products. Job dismissals led by Trump's Department of Government Efficiency also gutted the CDC Office on Smoking and Health, which oversees federal smoking cessation programs and studies.
The Trump administration also slashed funds the National Institutes of Health disburses to research facilities, which scientists say could imperil tobacco smoking studies.
Asked about the industry's contributions to the Trump campaign, White House spokesperson Kush Desai wrote in an email, 'the only special interest guiding the Administration's decision-making is the best interest of the American people.'
Tobacco-control advocates say Trump's early moves could undermine the country's progress diminishing smoking and the diseases it causes.
'These levels are decreasing because we have made such a commitment over the past few decades to enact things to work to get these levels down,' said Catharine Young, a Biden administration official who worked on his cancer moonshot initiative. 'But if you stop that or if you don't increase that effort, they're not going to continue to go down. They're either going to flat line, or they're going to start rising again.'
Both Democratic and Republican administrations have hesitated to use all the regulatory authorities the 2009 law granted them.
After Gottlieb resigned in March 2019, the agency's efforts to advance his 2017 tobacco plan were snuffed out.
'With his resignation, we lost the champion for the 2017 plan, and some months after he resigned, I was literally ordered by political appointees at FDA to stop talking publicly about menthol and nicotine,' said Mitch Zeller, who led the FDA's Center for Tobacco Products before King.
Ultimately, Zeller wasn't able to implement a menthol ban or nicotine limits during any of the three administrations he served.
During Biden's administration, then-FDA Commissioner Robert Califf enlisted allies outside the government to lobby the White House after agency efforts to ban menthol cigarettes were held up at the Office of Management and Budget. But the final rule was not published before Biden left office.
'They caved to political pressure from cigarette companies,' Zeller said.
The FDA estimated the plan to limit nicotine levels in cigarettes proposed during the Biden administration would avert 4.3 million deaths and prevent 48 million youth and young adults from starting habitual cigarette smoking by the end of the century if implemented. And banning menthol cigarettes in the U.S. would cut 324,000 to 654,000 smoking-attributable deaths by 2060, according to modeling studies cited in the 2022 proposal.
Luis Pinto, a spokesperson for Reynolds American, the maker of Lucky Strike, Camel and Newport cigarettes, said the company has not yet met with Trump's FDA commissioner, Marty Makary.
Pinto said the company is opposed to a menthol cigarette ban because it believes there are 'more effective and sustainable ways to help adult smokers transition away from combustible cigarettes.'
'Rather than setting a nicotine standard, the focus should be on expanding access to a diverse and innovative portfolio of potentially reduced-risk products,' Pinto said. 'Tobacco harm reduction, not prohibition, is the most effective path forward in reducing the health impacts of smoking.'
On Capitol Hill, Kennedy has rarely discussed tobacco despite his focus on preventing chronic disease, disappointing lawmakers like Durbin, the second ranking Democrat in the Senate.
In an interview with POLITICO, Durbin emphasized the tobacco industry is still a threat to public health, especially as it markets more novel forms of nicotine exposure like vaping, which has become popular among younger Americans.
'The tobacco companies have not given up. Their basic approach is to addict children to their product, and so now they're using vaping and [other] devices to get … high schoolers in America addicted to forms of nicotine,' Durbin said, referring to Gottlieb as a hero. 'I just don't think you can credibly say you're addressing public health in America and ignore tobacco and vaping.'
King, who's now with the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, an anti-smoking group, is still hoping to convince Trump officials that going after tobacco needs to be part of the MAHA agenda. And he says he sees hope in the FDA's crackdown on illegal e-cigarettes, which he interprets as a sign the government is looking to snuff out unapproved vaping products.
'We have seen the decimation of tobacco control infrastructure,' King said. 'It's important you have the resources and the people.'

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Live Updates: Court Will Consider Trump's Use of Troops as Immigration Protests Spread
Live Updates: Court Will Consider Trump's Use of Troops as Immigration Protests Spread

New York Times

time10 minutes ago

  • New York Times

Live Updates: Court Will Consider Trump's Use of Troops as Immigration Protests Spread

California liberals welcomed Gov. Gavin Newsom's speech condemning President Trump, but some remained skeptical of the governor. Republicans, meanwhile, saw his address as opportunistic and blamed him for the state's turmoil. For months, Californians weren't sure what to make of Gov. Gavin Newsom. There was the new podcast on which he interviewed right-wing influencers and said he felt trans athletes shouldn't participate in women's sports. There was the meeting in February with President Trump in the White House. And there were occasional snipes at Republicans, but nothing like those Mr. Newsom had dished out in years past. Then came a blistering nine-minute speech on Tuesday in which Mr. Newsom warned Americans that Mr. Trump was destroying democracy and acting as an authoritarian who would eventually send the military to states across the country. Many liberals in California cheered Mr. Newsom, finally seeing in him the leader of the resistance that they had been missing. Those feeling confused and fearful since Mr. Trump started his second term were looking for someone to stick up for them and said they appreciated Mr. Newsom's forcefulness. 'In a time of rising fear and growing threats to democracy, he spoke not just as a governor, but as a moral leader,' said Representative Lateefah Simon, Democrat of California. 'He named the danger plainly.' But others, while supportive of his message, were not entirely convinced. They said testing the political climate ahead of a potential run for president. 'Even if you're late to the party, you know, welcome to the fight,' said Hugo Soto-Martinez, a progressive City Council member in Los Angeles, who appreciated what Mr. Newsom said but wished the governor had stood up to the president sooner. Adrian Tirtanadi, executive director of Open Door Legal, a nonprofit which provides free legal representation for immigrants and others, said he liked all of the words in Mr. Newsom's speech. But, he said, he wondered why the governor was not backing up the rhetoric with more financial support for immigration lawyers who could fight deportation. Big talk without much action, Mr. Tirtanadi said, is often the California way. Still, others appreciated that Mr. Newsom had demanded that Mr. Trump stop workplace raids and filed lawsuits seeking to block the deployment of National Guard troops and Marines in Southern California. That has given some hope to immigrants who have felt powerless. When David Campos was 14, he and his family traveled by foot and by bus, across deserts and over mountains, to California from their home in Guatemala. They scurried under a border fence and settled in South Central Los Angeles without legal papers. The family eventually obtained citizenship through his father's carpentry job. Mr. Campos went on to Stanford University and Harvard Law School, served on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors and is now the vice chairman of the California Democratic Party. Mr. Campos said he was glad that Mr. Newsom, the former San Francisco mayor with whom he sometimes clashed, took a defiant stance toward Mr. Trump. 'I'm glad he's rising to this moment,' Mr. Campos, 54, said in an interview. 'The governor reminded us that if the president can do this in California, he can do it anywhere in this country. That's how a democracy can die.' Republicans in California, many of whom have aligned with President Trump, said they were decidedly unimpressed with the governor's speech. Senator Brian Jones, the State Senate minority leader, said that the governor seemed to have been filming an early campaign commercial with his speech, from the way the flags were set in his backdrop to the suit he was wearing. 'It doesn't do anything to lower tensions in L.A.,' Mr. Jones said. 'When he says we all need to stand up, is he encouraging more people to show up to the riots and participate?' James Gallagher, the Republican leader of the California State Assembly, called the governor's address 'self-righteous political posturing.' Mr. Gallagher said California's policy of preventing local law enforcement from working with federal immigration officials created the current tension. He said he found it funny that Mr. Newsom was accusing Mr. Trump of being authoritarian when the governor ordered Californians to close their businesses, stay home from church, attend school on Zoom, wear masks and get vaccinated during the Covid-19 pandemic. 'He was a total tyrant, and he has no business talking about authoritarianism because he is exhibit A,' Mr. Gallagher said. Mr. Newsom's speech, as well as his sharp-tongued retorts to Republicans on social media this week, won some plaudits from younger influencers. Dwayne Murphy, Jr., a 34-year-old content creator who lives in Downey, Calif., and said he votes Democrat, said he appreciated that the governor 'seems to be hyper-focused on standing up for this state at a time like this, and I feel like that's what people are very encouraged by.' Inkiad Kabir, 20, a pop culture content creator who lives in the Inland Empire region of California, said that Mr. Newsom was the rare Democrat willing to go on the attack, calling him 'basically liberal Trump, in a way.' Mr. Kabir created a popular TikTok video this week in which he called the governor 'Daddy Newsom' and likened the governor to a 'toxic ex that you promise you're not going to go back to, but you always go back to.' For now, it seems, Mr. Kabir has gone back.

Australia's defense minister downplays concerns over Pentagon review of multi-billion submarine deal
Australia's defense minister downplays concerns over Pentagon review of multi-billion submarine deal

Hamilton Spectator

time10 minutes ago

  • Hamilton Spectator

Australia's defense minister downplays concerns over Pentagon review of multi-billion submarine deal

BANGKOK (AP) — Australia's defense minister dismissed concerns Thursday that a deal between the U.S., Australia and Britain to provide his country with nuclear-powered submarines could be in jeopardy, following a report that the Pentagon had ordered a review. Australian Defense Minister Richard Marles told Sky News Australia that he had known about the review of the deal 'for some time,' saying that it was a 'very natural step for the incoming administration to take.' He noted that the UK's government also reviewed the deal, the centerpiece of a three-way alliance known as AUKUS after it was elected, and that his own government had looked at it as part of its own review of Australia's entire defense posture. 'I think an incoming government having a look at this is something that they have a perfect right to do and we welcome it and we'll work with it,' he said. The deal, worth more than $200 billion, was signed between the three countries in 2021 under then President Joe Biden, designed to provide Australia, one of Washington's staunchest allies in the region, with greater maritime capabilities to counter China's increasingly strong navy . The deal also involves the U.S. selling several of its Virginia-class submarines to Australia to bridge the gap as the new submarines are being jointly built. In January, Australia made the first of six $500 million payments to the U.S. under the AUKUS deal, meant to bolster American submarine manufacturing. Marles met with U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on the sidelines of a defense conference in Singapore less than two weeks ago, and told reporters afterward that he had come away with 'a sense of confidence about the way in which AUKUS is proceeding.' 'AUKUS is on track and we are meeting all the timelines that are associated with it,' he said. 'We are very optimistic.' Hegseth's address to the defense forum made multiple mentions of cooperation with Australia but no reference to AUKUS, however, though he did later mention the deal when he was taking questions. Hegseth did urge allies in the Indo-Pacific to increase their defense spending, and underscored the need for a 'strong, resolute and capable network of allies and partners' as the U.S. seeks to counter China. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .

IU's governance crisis reflects dangerous trend undermining democracy
IU's governance crisis reflects dangerous trend undermining democracy

Indianapolis Star

time13 minutes ago

  • Indianapolis Star

IU's governance crisis reflects dangerous trend undermining democracy

Recent commentary in IndyStar defended Indiana University's leadership and questioned the focus and intensity of faculty criticism. But what's happening at IU isn't just a campus controversy — it's part of a national trend. Across the country, public institutions are quietly dismantling the democratic processes that once guided their decisions. IU has become a flashpoint not because of any one leader or protest, but because it shows how shared governance and expert input are being replaced by top-down control. For over a century, American universities have followed a model known as shared governance. That means faculty, administrators and trustees work together to shape a school's mission and values. It's not just tradition — it's a safeguard. It ensures that decisions about teaching, research and student life are made by the people who do the work. In recent years, IU's shared governance has been steadily eroded through a series of top-down decisions. The April 2024 no-confidence vote in President Pamela Whitten by IU Bloomington faculty — 827 to 29 — wasn't about politics or personalities. It was a response to a pattern: refusing to recognize graduate workers' union efforts; sending state police to arrest peaceful protestors in Dunn Meadow; and canceling a long-planned exhibition by Palestinian-American artist Samia Halaby without consulting curators or faculty committees. These decisions bypassed longstanding university processes like faculty review, shared governance consultation and curatorial oversight — processes that have historically guided how academic and cultural decisions are made. Now, that erosion has been written into law. Indiana's House Enrolled Act 1001, passed in 2024, officially reduced faculty governance to an 'advisory only' role. Some argue that faculty governance was always advisory in practice — but this law removes any doubt. It replaces collaboration with control. Opinion: I was running for IU Board of Trustees — until Mike Braun took it over What is happening at IU is a symptom of a pattern playing out more broadly. We're seeing the slow dismantling of democratic decision-making in public institutions. At the federal level, the National Institutes of Health was recently blocked from posting notices in the Federal Register, which froze the review of over 16,000 new research grant applications — worth about $1.5 billion. Around the same time, the agency abruptly canceled more than 1,400 already awarded grants, halting active research projects without the usual expert review or explanation. Both the review of new applications and the continuation of awarded grants typically rely on deliberative panels of scientists to ensure decisions are fair, transparent and based on merit. In both of these cases, those processes were bypassed. Though some meetings have resumed, the damage is clear: Critical systems can be disrupted with little warning and no input from the people who are supposed to guide them. Other federal agencies have followed suit. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration have recently bypassed their own expert advisory committees in making major public health decisions. The Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee was not convened to review or vote on the 2024–2025 influenza vaccine strain selection, breaking with decades of precedent. Around the same time, both ACIP and VRBPAC were sidelined in the rollout of new COVID-19 vaccine guidance and, just this week, the entire 17-member ACIP committee was fired. A top CDC vaccine adviser resigned, citing concerns that the agency was ignoring its own deliberative processes. Whether in universities or federal agencies, the pattern is the same: Leaders are cutting out the people who should have a voice. That might seem faster or easier — but it comes at a profound and ultimately self-defeating cost. When decisions are made without input from those most affected, institutions don't just lose trust — they undermine their own legitimacy and effectiveness. And in a democracy, trust is everything. Opinion: IU deserves a serious president. Pamela Whitten must go. This isn't a partisan issue. No matter your politics, the loss of open, thoughtful decision-making should be alarming. Processes like faculty governance, peer review and public advisory boards aren't meant to slow things down or push a political agenda. They exist because they lead to better decisions. When they're ignored, we don't just lose transparency. We lose trust. Indiana's public universities — and all public institutions — can only succeed when decisions are made with the people who do the work, not imposed on them from above. When we exclude the experts, educators, scientists, and advisors who sustain these institutions, we don't just weaken the process. We weaken the outcomes.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store