RFJ Jr. says US won't donate to global vaccine effort
The United States won't contribute anymore to Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, until the global health organization has 're-earned the public trust,' U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said Wednesday.
In an inflammatory video speech delivered to the Gavi pledging summit, seen by POLITICO, Kennedy accused Gavi of neglecting vaccine safety, making questionable recommendations around Covid-19 vaccines and silencing dissenting views.
'When the science was inconvenient, Gavi ignored the science,' Kennedy alleged.
'I call on Gavi today to re-earn the public trust and to justify the $8 billion that America has provided in funding since 2001,' he said. 'And I'll tell you how to start taking vaccine safety seriously: Consider the best science available, even when the science contradicts established paradigms. Until that happens, the United States won't contribute more to Gavi.'
Gavi leaders are in Brussels on Wednesday for the organization's pledging summit, where they are hoping to raise $9 billion for the 2026-2030 period. This will allow another 500 million childhood vaccinations and save at least 8 million lives by 2030, Gavi's plan said.
Going into the summit, the question of the U.S. pledge was one of the hottest ones. While an early pledge under former President Joe Biden of $1.58 billion has been announced, it was unclear whether Kennedy was going to commit to this. The Trump administration previously signaled it planned to cut its funding for Gavi, representing around $300 million annually.
During his speech, Kennedy accused Gavi and the World Health Organization of working together during the Covid-19 pandemic to 'recommend best practices for social media companies to silence dissenting views, to stifle free speech and legitimate questions during that period.'
Facebook and Twitter restricted U.S. President Donald Trump's accounts during the pandemic.
Kennedy also criticized what he alleged are Gavi's 'questionable recommendations encouraging pregnant women to receive Covid-19 vaccines.'
There are things he 'admires' about Gavi, Kennedy said, such as its commitment to make medicine affordable to all. But in its attempt to promote universal vaccination, he accused Gavi of having 'neglected the key issue of vaccine safety.'
'When vaccine safety issues have come before Gavi, Gavi has treated them not as a patient health problem, but as a public relations problem,' Kennedy alleged.
'Business as usual is over, unaccountable and opaque policymaking is over. I invite all of you to join us in a new era of evidence-based medicine, old-standard science and integrity,' he added.
POLITICO has contacted Gavi for a response to Kennedy's accusations.
Since Kennedy, a longtime vaccine skeptic, has been health secretary, he has restricted Covid-19 vaccine access and fired all members of the vaccine advisory panel for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, replacing them with his own picks, with several having a controversial history around immunizations.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Politico
38 minutes ago
- Politico
Bove confirms POLITICO report on his harsh management style
With President Donald Trump's July 4 deadline drawing near, Senate Majority Leader John Thune told POLITICO on Tuesday night he believes the Senate is 'on a path' to start voting on the megabill Friday. But he's got several fires to put out first. For one, he's under immense pressure to water down the Medicaid provisions the Senate GOP is counting on for hundreds of billions of dollars worth of savings. Speaker Mike Johnson is warning in private that Senate Republicans could cost House Republicans their majority next year if they try to push through the deep Medicaid cuts in the current Senate version, according to three people granted anonymity to describe the matter. That comes as Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) cautions GOP senators that those same cutbacks could become a political albatross for Republicans just as the Affordable Care Act was for Democrats. '[Barack] Obama said … 'if you like your health care you can keep it, if you like your doctor we can keep it,' and yet we had several million people lose their health care,' the in-cycle senator told reporters Tuesday. 'Here we're saying [with] Medicaid, we're going to hold people harmless, but we're estimating' millions of people could lose coverage. GOP leaders are trying to ease concerns by preparing to include a fund to help rural hospitals that could be harmed by the reductions, even as Thune insisted Tuesday 'we like where we are.' Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), who's been pushing for the fund, said while that 'helps lessen the impact,' she remains 'concerned about the changes in the funding for Medicaid in general.' The other drama hanging over the bill are several imminent, critical rulings from Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough. Several committees that already have rulings in hand are due to release revised text as soon as this morning, according to a person familiar with the plans. And Republicans could know as soon as Wednesday whether MacDonough will clear major parts of their tax package. As of late Tuesday, the parliamentarian had not yet ruled on provisions linked to the so-called current policy baseline, an accounting maneuver that zeroes out the costs of $3.8 trillion of expiring tax cuts, according to two people granted anonymity to disclose the private discussions. Make no mistake: Adverse rulings could send Republicans back to the drawing board on making their tax plan permanent or otherwise force them to go nuclear and override or ignore MacDonough altogether. There's uncertainty from all sides about how that would play out, given the gambit has never been tried before with tax legislation. This much is already clear: With the tax package in flux and Medicaid savings under threat, GOP leaders have a major math problem on their hands. And House fiscal hawks are watching to see, regardless of the accounting method, whether the Senate sticks to the budget deal they agreed to with Johnson earlier this year. What else we're watching: — Bove on the Hill: Senate Judiciary lawmakers will convene the first blockbuster judicial hearing of the second Trump administration later Wednesday, where they will grill Emil Bove, a top Justice Department official and former criminal defense lawyer for Trump who has a shot at a lifetime appointment on the federal bench. Some even see him as a potential future Trump Supreme Court nominee. — Vought testifies on rescissions: OMB Director Russ Vought will testify in front of the Senate's full bench of appropriators Wednesday afternoon to justify the White House's request for $9.4 billion in cuts of previously approved money. Expect pointed questioning from various Republicans on the panel, including Collins, who has publicly opposed cuts to PEPFAR, the HIV and AIDS foreign aid program. — Iran briefings incoming: Senators will have a postponed briefing on the situation in Iran on Thursday, after which Democrat Tim Kaine (Va.) is aiming to call a vote on his resolution seeking to block further U.S. military action against Iran. On the House side, Speaker Johnson said that members will now be briefed Friday. Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries said Tuesday there had been no Gang of Eight meeting yet. Jordain Carney, Meredith Lee Hill and Hailey Fuchs contributed to this report.
Atlantic
43 minutes ago
- Atlantic
MAHA Is Coming for Mayonnaise
In the kitchen, an ingredient's taste is sometimes less important than its function. Cornstarch has rescued many a watery gravy; gelatin turns juice to Jell-O. Yet the substances that make bread fluffy, hold mayonnaise together, and keep the cream in ice cream have, according to the new stance of the United States government, 'no culinary use.' These natural and synthetic substances, called emulsifiers, are added to processed foods to give them the textures that Americans have come to love. They've also become targets in Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s push to remove many food additives from the American diet. The 'Make America Healthy Again' report, published in May, groups emulsifiers with other additives, some of which it says are linked to mental disorders, metabolic syndrome, and cancer. Online, the MAHA crowd echoes claims that emulsifiers are helping drive America's chronic health problems. Like seed oils and food dyes, emulsifiers have raised some real health concerns, particularly about gut health. But distinguishing their ill effects from those of the foods they're in is challenging—and probably a distraction from the diet changes that would really make Americans healthier. To anyone who's attempted (and failed) to make a smooth vinaigrette using only oil and vinegar, MAHA's assertion that emulsifiers have no culinary use is an affront. Any recipe that calls for blending two substances that don't mix well together requires emulsifiers' magic touch. Their molecular structure is drawn to watery substances on one end and fat-based ones on the other, bridging ingredients that would otherwise separate. In a vinaigrette, a dollop of mustard does the trick. Mayonnaise, essentially a blend of oil and a water-based acid, such as vinegar, is spreadable thanks to a natural emulsifier: egg yolks. Similarly, adding eggs to milk prevents ice cream from separating into solid milk fat studded with ice shards (yum). Not all emulsifiers are as recognizable as eggs and mustard. Many commercial ice creams swap eggs for cheaper synthetic emulsifiers. Cake mixes are foolproof because chemicals called propylene glycol esters prevent powdered fats from clumping. Monoglycerides and diglycerides add structure to and extend the shelf life of bread. Xanthan gum thickens creamy salad dressings. The MAHA report makes no distinction between purely chemical emulsifiers and those that are naturally occurring, such as egg yolks and soy lecithin. So far, studies have not definitively identified differences in their effects on human health. Perhaps because they are so useful, emulsifiers are in about half of supermarket foods sold in the United Kingdom, according to a 2023 study of the country's four largest supermarkets; one study in France found that they account for seven of the top 10 most-consumed food additives among adults. So far, their prevalence in the U.S. food system hasn't been studied, but given the dominance of processed food in the American diet, it's safe to say that we eat a lot of them. In Kennedy's view, that abundance of emulsifiers is at least partly responsible for America's chronic-disease epidemic. In May, he promised to investigate and ban food additives that are 'really dangerous.' But so far, the research on emulsifiers doesn't justify such a label. In 2017, an FDA-led study concluded that seven common emulsifiers didn't raise any safety concerns at the usual levels of consumption. The agency's calculations have 'a lot of safety built in,' says Renee Leber, a food scientist at the Institute of Food Technologists, a trade group. There's no reason to expect that Americans would ever consume enough emulsifiers to spark serious health concerns. Still, looking further into emulsifiers' health impacts isn't a bad idea. A growing number of studies suggests that some can harm the gut, perhaps by shifting the balance of the gut microbiome. They may also damage the gut's protective mucus layer, leaving it more vulnerable to inflammation and bacteria. A few studies suggest a link between the inflammation that some emulsifiers cause and certain illnesses, including Crohn's disease, metabolic syndrome, and type 2 diabetes. But other research has turned up conflicting results; a study published last year linked a high-emulsifier diet to a better -protected gut. Even emulsifier experts aren't sure exactly what the substances do in the body. Research on how they affect intestinal health is 'very much a work in progress,' Benoit Chassaing, a professor at the Institut Pasteur, in Paris, told me. It also still isn't clear which ones, if any, have the most potential for harm. In a 2021 study, Chassaing and his colleagues used a model to test the effects of 20 common emulsifiers on the gut microbiome. Only two of them—the synthetic emulsifiers carboxymethylcellulose (found in vitamins and dietary supplements) and polysorbate 80 (usually in edible oils and cake icing)—were determined to have lasting negative consequences. Chassaing has also found that some people's microbiomes are more sensitive to emulsifiers —which is to say, conceivably emulsifiers could have different effects on different people. Without large-scale human trials, none of the research on emulsifiers can be considered conclusive. As the authors behind the 2024 study wrote, 'For now, do not feel guilty if you eat ice-cream!' (At least, not because you're consuming emulsifiers.) From the May 2023 issue: Could ice cream possibly be good for you? None of this has deterred Kennedy from fearmongering about additives like emulsifiers. Instead, he's continuing a pattern that by now has become a MAHA signature: In the health secretary's campaigns against seed oils and food dyes, he has exaggerated modest scientific findings to justify grand allegations that additives drive chronic disease. Some skepticism of these ingredients may be warranted. But Kennedy's critiques lack nuance at a stage when nuance is all that the current research can provide. A MAHA-led deep dive into these questions could turn up some genuinely useful information. If certain emulsifiers are especially gentle on the gut, the food industry could use them to replace the ones that might be more irritating. Identifying what makes certain people more sensitive to them could shape criteria for prescribing emulsifier-free diets. But what Kennedy plans to do about emulsifiers beyond investigating their safety is anyone's guess. When I asked the Department of Health and Human Services about it, Emily G. Hilliard, a press secretary, told me that 'Secretary Kennedy is committed to ensuring transparency in the food supply so that Americans know exactly what's in their food.' Banning any emulsifiers that might be found to cause serious harm would be prudent, but then foods that contain them would have to be reformulated—a costly, time-consuming endeavor. For some foods, that might not even be an option: Without an emulsifier, natural or synthetic, ice cream 'just wouldn't be plausible,' Leber told me. If Kennedy aggressively pursues bans or some other type of restrictions, it will be worth stepping back and asking what the administration is really trying to achieve. The health effects of emulsifiers haven't yet been fully distinguished from those of the foods they're in (which tend to have high levels of fat, sugar, or both), nor have those of seed oils and food dyes. In fact, the science points to the likelihood that emulsifiers' potential harms are minor in comparison with more basic nutritional problems. But maybe ditching emulsifiers could act as some roundabout way of nudging Americans toward eating healthier, if Kennedy is prepared to rob us all of ice cream. In May, Kennedy announced that food additives and processed foods would be the ' central focus ' of his health administration. But really, that indicates just how unfocused his movement is. The MAHA report rails against American overconsumption of high-sugar, high-fat, ultra-processed foods, yet so far, it hasn't been able to do much to limit their consumption beyond eliciting a nonbinding promise from Kraft-Heinz and General Mills to remove dyes from foods like mac and cheese and Kool-Aid, and encouraging people to cook french fries in beef tallow. Removing or replacing emulsifiers could result in some health gains, but none that are likely to outweigh the health consequences of eating the foods that contain them.
Axios
an hour ago
- Axios
White House economists project falling deficits from Trump agenda
Tax legislation moving through Congress, paired with other Trump administration policies, will create an economic growth surge that puts the national debt on a downward path, White House economists project in a report out Wednesday morning. The big picture: The new projections are wildly at odds with estimates generated from mainstream models, including from the Congressional Budget Office and top universities, which see wider fiscal deficits and more modest growth impacts. The new White House analysis models the One Big, Beautiful Bill Act — a combination of tax and spending cuts that has passed the House and is pending before the Senate — along with other aspects of the Trump agenda, including deregulation and tariffs. By the numbers: The Council of Economic Advisers' projections find that the full constellation of Trump policies will cause the U.S. debt-to-GDP ratio to fall to 94% over the next decade, from its current levels around 98%. The CBO projects that the tax legislation would push that ratio up to 124%, or 117% after accounting for growth benefits. The White House analysis projects that the cumulative deficit over the next decade will be $5.5 trillion lower than under current law, once the tax bill is combined with a growth boost from deregulation and energy policy, unspecified future spending cuts, and tariff revenue. What they're saying: "The CBO score isn't intended to be an overall, holistic view of where the deficit is going," CEA chair Stephen Miran said on a call with reporters Wednesday morning. "It doesn't include things like tariff revenue, it doesn't include things like discretionary spending reductions, it doesn't include things like the much bigger economic growth we'll have." Reality check: The deficit widened following the original 2017 Trump tax cuts, which the "big, beautiful bill" would extend. The deficit was 3.1% of GDP in 2016, before President Trump took office, and 4.6% of GDP in 2019, just before the COVID-19 pandemic. Zoom in: Unsurprisingly, the private-sector modelers whose projections are more in line with the CBO numbers find the CEA's assumptions and conclusions to be unrealistic. "With this report, the CEA claims that these tax cuts will not only pay for themselves, the tax cuts will also pay down the growing debt that exists under current law even without the tax bill," Kent Smetters, director of The Penn-Wharton Budget Model, tells Axios. "It is a truly fantastical claim," adds Smetters. His group's modeling estimates that the version of the legislation that passed the House would increase cumulative deficits by $2.8 trillion over the next decade. "We would love to better understand how they are coming to a conclusion that is so out of line with all the other modeling done by economists across the ideological spectrum," Martha Gimbel, executive director of the Yale Budget Lab, tells Axios.
