
RFK Jr. vows to stop collecting from vaccine lawsuit if confirmed to Cabinet
Facing intense scrutiny from U.S. senators over his potential profit from vaccine lawsuits while serving as the nation's health secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said that if he is confirmed he will not collect fees from litigation against the drugmakers of a cervical cancer vaccine.
Kennedy, who's President Donald Trump's pick to lead the U.S. Health and Human Services agency, told the Senate finance committee that he would amend his ethics disclosure after several senators, including Democrat Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, and his cousin Caroline Kennedy raised concerns about his financial arrangement with the law firm representing patients who are claiming injuries from the vaccines.
"An amendment to my Ethics Agreement is in process, and it provides that I will divest my interest in this litigation," Kennedy said in a written response to the committee.
Initially, Kennedy had told the committee that he would continue to accept referral fees in legal cases that don't involve the U.S. government. That included an arrangement with a law firm that's sued Merck over Gardasil, its human papillomavirus vaccine that prevents cervical cancer. The deal earned Kennedy $850,000 last year, and he told senators he had referred hundreds of clients to the firm.
During Wednesday's hearing, Warren outlined several ways in which Kennedy could make it easier to sue vaccine manufacturers.
"Kennedy can kill off access to vaccines and make millions of dollars while he does it," Warren said. "Kids might die, but Robert Kennedy can keep cashing in."
The issue also may have been a concern for Senator Bill Cassidy, a Louisiana Republican who is also a physician and is conflicted over his vote on Kennedy's confirmation because of Kennedy's anti-vaccine views.
The Republican president's nominee is "financially vested in finding fault with vaccines," Cassidy, the chair of the health committee, noted as he ended Thursday's confirmation hearing.
Kennedy also stopped short of making other commitments, refusing to promise that he would not engage in lobbying Health and Human Services after his term ends.
Kennedy and his supporters have railed against that sort of activity, saying the "revolving door" of Washington — where federal officials trade public service jobs to influence government agencies while in the private sector — has undermined the U.S. public health system. He has criticized the practice at least a half-dozen times in social media posts over recent years.
Kennedy, who ran for president last year before dropping his bid and endorsing Trump, vowed in one post on social media platform X to "rein in lobbyists and slam shut the revolving door," if elected president.
He first challenged President Joe Biden for the 2024 Democratic presidential nomination but then ran as an independent before striking a deal to endorse Trump in exchange for a promise to serve in a health policy role during a second Trump administration.
Now, after two days of hearings, his shot at that job is on the line with concerns about his anti-vaccine advocacy prompting nearly all Democrats to reject his nomination and a handful of Republicans who are at least considering doing the same.
If Democrats unanimously oppose Kennedy, he'll need support from all but three Republicans. The Senate finance committee is expected to decide if he makes it to the Senate floor for a vote next week.
Kennedy's response to the Senate committee was first reported by The New York Times.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Voice of America
15-03-2025
- Voice of America
US Appeals court allows DEI crackdown
A U.S. federal appeals court Friday lifted a block on the Trump administration's crackdown on diversity, equity and inclusion programs in the federal government, pausing a lower court ruling blocking enforcement of a series of presidential executive orders halting support of DEI initiatives. The three-judge panel on the Fourth Circuit of Appeals, in Richmond, Virginia, found that the directives by President Donald Trump were likely constitutional, disagreeing with a ruling in February by a federal judge in Maryland. The judges are allowing the Trump administration to implement the policy while they consider a final decision on the constitutionality of the orders. U.S. District Judge Adam Abelson in Baltimore had blocked implementation of Trump's executive order nationwide pending the outcome of a lawsuit brought by the city of Baltimore and groups that claimed, among other things, the executive orders -- one abolishing DEI programs in the federal government and another requiring recipients of federal grants to not operate DEI programs -- improperly targeted constitutionally protected free speech. The Trump administration maintains the orders do not ban or discourage any speech but target instead unlawful discrimination. In addition to directing federal agencies to end diversity programs, the executive orders also precluded federal contractors from having them. Trump also ordered the Justice Department and other agencies to identify businesses, schools and nonprofit organizations that were deemed unlawfully discriminating through DEI policies.


Voice of America
15-03-2025
- Voice of America
Trump vows accountability for those who pursued him in court cases
U.S. President Donald Trump promised to seek accountability for those who pursued legal cases against him when he was out of office, speaking Friday at the Justice Department. "Our predecessors turned this Department of Justice into the Department of Injustice. But I stand before you today to declare that those days are over, and they are never going to come back. They're never coming back," Trump said. During his years out of office, the department twice indicted Trump on charges that he illegally stored classified documents at his Florida estate and that he worked to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election. Both cases were dismissed after Trump won election in November, with the department citing a long-standing policy of not prosecuting a sitting president. "Now, as the chief law enforcement officer in our country, I will insist upon and demand full and complete accountability for the wrongs and abuses that have occurred. The American people have given us a mandate, a mandate like few people thought possible," Trump said. Trump has fired prosecutors who investigated him during the Biden administration and scrutinized thousands of FBI agents who investigated some supporters of the president who stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. Representative Jamie Raskin, the senior Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, called Trump's speech a "staggering violation of [the] traditional boundary between independent criminal law enforcement and presidential political power." Speaking outside Justice shortly after Trump spoke, Raskin said, "No other president in American history has stood at the Department of Justice to proclaim an agenda of criminal prosecution and retaliation against his political foes." Trump has long been critical of both the department and the FBI. He has installed political allies into top leadership positions at both of those agencies. FBI Director Kash Patel and Attorney General Pam Bondi attended Friday's talk. In introducing Trump, Bondi said, "We all work for the greatest president in the history of our country. ... He will never stop fighting for us, and we will never stop fighting for him and for our country." During his speech, Trump promised "historic reforms" at the agencies and said, "Under the Trump administration, the DOJ and the FBI will once again become the premier crime fighting agencies on the face of the Earth." His speech had echos of his campaign rallies, with music blaring from speakers before Trump entered the department's Great Hall and his address hitting on some of the main themes from his campaign, including border security and fighting violent crime. On crime, Trump said that homicides, property crime and robberies rose during the Biden administration. "I have no higher mission as president of the United States than to end this killing and stop this law breaking and to making America safe again. And that's what you're all about in this room. We want to protect Americans, and we protect everybody that's in our country," he said.


Voice of America
15-03-2025
- Voice of America
2 judges rule mass firings of agency employees to be illegal
Federal judges in two separate cases ruled this week that recent mass firings of employees as part of President Donald Trump's push to cut the size of the federal workforce were illegal and ordered thousands of probationary employees to be reinstated — at least for now. The Trump administration pushed back, filing appeals in both cases. "This injunction is entirely unconstitutional," White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Friday. "You cannot have a low-level district court judge filing an injunction to usurp the executive authority of the president of the United States," she added. In the suit filed by federal employee unions, U.S. District Judge William Alsup of the Northern District of California said that the process had been a 'sham,' as some employees were told they were being fired for poor performance. Just before issuing his ruling Thursday, Alsup said, "It is sad, a sad day. Our government would fire some good employee and say it was based on performance when they know good and well that's a lie." The departments of Agriculture, Defense, Energy, Interior, Treasury and Veterans Affairs were ordered to 'immediately' rehire the employees. Alsup, however, noted that federal agencies may still proceed with reductions in force, following proper procedure. Later Thursday, U.S. District Judge James Bredar also ruled that probationary employees must be reinstated after finding that 18 agencies had acted illegally in firing them. Democratic attorneys general representing the District of Columbia, Maryland and 18 other states argued that agencies failed to follow proper procedures for mass layoffs, including providing states with 60 days' notice. "Lacking the notice to which they were entitled, the states weren't ready for the impact of so many unemployed people. They are still scrambling to catch up," Bredar wrote in his memorandum explaining his decision.