logo
It's not hard to see through RFK Jr.'s ‘radical transparency' pledge

It's not hard to see through RFK Jr.'s ‘radical transparency' pledge

Washington Post24-04-2025

Peter Lurie is executive director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest. Aaron Kesselheim is a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School. Joshua Sharfstein served as principal deputy commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration during the Obama administration.
In his inaugural speech upon taking over as secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. declared that his plans include 'radical transparency.' He has subsequently repeated that phrase multiple times, but what it actually means — to Kennedy and for the rest of us — is far from clear.
Government transparency efforts generally start with the premise that an open and engaged agency functions more effectively and inspires public trust. Transparency programs have involved more public explanation of government action, quicker release of documents and databases, more opportunities for public comment, and an aversion to sudden, unexplained major changes in direction. In its conventional form, transparency operates neutrally, without regard to specific political objectives.
To date, Kennedy's 'radical transparency' looks nothing like this. After an initial pause on agency communications, HHS eliminated communications teams across the department. These teams include people who understand how to reach the public and clinicians to share information on drug and device recalls, outbreak investigations, and other health topics. Beyond the communications teams, there has been little effort to make knowledgeable people available for public engagement: HHS has not permitted experts from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, for example, to brief the country on one of the worst measles outbreaks in decades.
Also gone are most of the staffers who respond to requests for government documents under the Freedom of Information Act — one of the most important federal statutes related to open government — even though the department already faced formidable backlogs. (One exception appears to be the sparing of staff fulfilling requests for vaccine data filed by Kennedy's campaign lawyer, who is known for vaccine-related petitions and litigation.)
Kennedy's team also appears to be undermining the integrity of and access to important health datasets. Before Kennedy's confirmation, HHS interpreted President Donald Trump's executive orders on gender and diversity as requiring certain national health datasets to be hidden, at least temporarily, from public view. After a judge required the department to make the information available again, its websites presenting these data now state — without further explanation — that they are 'being modified to comply with President Trump's Executive Orders.'
Meanwhile, HHS has dismissed entire teams supporting major national studies. These include the National Survey of Drug Use on Health, the nation's leading effort to understand addiction, and the Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System, a critical source of information on risk factors for preterm delivery and other adverse birth outcomes.
Even completed scientific studies are being delayed, altered or quashed. After three-quarters of a century of uninterrupted publication, the department failed to publish the CDC's flagship Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report for several weeks, delaying information on the spreading avian flu epidemic. Public Health Reports, a journal of the Surgeon General's Office, is now demanding revisions of accepted, peer-reviewed articles to conform with bans on certain terms.
Public participation in department decision-making has also been restricted. The Food and Drug Administration and the CDC have canceled or postponed open advisory committee meetings on vaccines. And HHS rescinded a federal commitment made in 1971 allowing public comment on rules related to public property, loans, grants, benefits and contracts.
Kennedy has yet to explain major changes at the department itself. HHS has dismissed approximately 10,000 employees (some erroneously) and is embarking on a major reorganization, with only a brief media statement explaining what appears to be the fundamental reshaping of multiple agencies. NIH has canceled hundreds of grants on the grounds of ill-defined 'gender ideology,' 'DEI,' or 'no longer effectuat[ing] agency priorities.' Also poorly explained: Why NIH has stopped multiple grants to South Africa that are critical to understanding how best to fight the global scourges of tuberculosis and AIDS. And Kennedy has yet to answer questions about why HHS pushed out an FDA leader in charge of reviewing vaccines, brought on a well-known anti-vaccine activist to reexamine vaccine safety data or prompted a leading food scientist at NIH to claim he was being censored.
With so much obfuscation and opacity at HHS, it has become crystal clear that 'radical transparency' is not about openness and engagement. So what does the term actually mean?
The HHS website on 'radical transparency' includes five items. One, inexplicably, is 'Ending Anti-Semitism on College Campuses.' A second is a press release stating that Kennedy has ordered the FDA to 'explore rulemaking' to stop food additives from entering the food supply without the agency being notified. A third is a list of terminated contracts that provides no explanations for the terminations.
The two remaining points are aggregations of data already in the public domain. One brings together information on chemical contaminants from several existing datasets. The other includes details on conflicts of interest among members of the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, a key focus of Kennedy's attention. In the past, he has claimed that 97 percent of the committee's members have conflicts of interest and has stated that 'almost all' have 'severe, severe conflicts of interest.' The new website, which aggregates information disclosed at the committee's public meetings, actually demonstrates that Kennedy is wrong. Many meetings involve no conflicts of interest, and at others, members regularly disclose conflicts and abstain from relevant votes.
Meanwhile, Kennedy's signature Make America Healthy Again Commission held its first meeting behind closed doors.
So far, the selective releases of 'radical transparency' seem to be little more than tactics in pursuit of the secretary's own agenda. With so much at stake for their health, Americans deserve to understand what HHS is up to and why. 'Radical transparency' needs a lot more transparency.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Exclusive-SEC plan says existing staff cuts help meet DOGE targets
Exclusive-SEC plan says existing staff cuts help meet DOGE targets

Yahoo

timean hour ago

  • Yahoo

Exclusive-SEC plan says existing staff cuts help meet DOGE targets

By Douglas Gillison and Chris Prentice (Reuters) -Wall Street's top regulator told the White House in March it had already made substantial progress toward meeting President Trump and Elon Musk's demands for leaner government via voluntary workforce reductions, according to a planning document obtained by Reuters. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission also told the Office of Management and Budget that it is legally required to seek input from Congress before any "significant reorganization" and that changes beyond certain budget thresholds need lawmakers' approval, according to the March 13 document provided in response to a Reuters' public records request. The SEC submission for "reduction in force" and reorganizations, which Reuters is the first to report, responded to February's call from Trump and erstwhile ally Musk for federal agencies to develop plans for "large scale" cuts as part of the so-called Department of Government Efficiency initiative. Though much of the text, released under the Freedom of Information Act, is redacted, the visible portions suggest agency leadership at least in part believed voluntary reductions already in progress could weigh against the need for further cuts. An SEC spokesperson declined to comment beyond recently installed SEC Chair Paul Atkins's public statements and the agency's recent budget request. The Office of Management and Budget did not respond to a request for comment. Since he took office in January, Trump's government-slashing efforts have stirred unease and concern among some SEC staff uncertain about the future of the agency's workforce and its political independence. Critics have said the workforce reductions could hinder the SEC's performance in times of crisis but Atkins has brushed off such concerns. Officials affiliated with the so-called Department of Government Efficiency continue to work on restructuring and cost cutting at the SEC. The March plan was compiled by then-Acting Director Mark Uyeda, who while serving as interim agency chief also rewired top agency positions in Enforcement and Examinations to have them report to new deputy directors. Uyeda declined to comment on the document. The plan predates Atkins' arrival in office in April. In response to an OMB query about how the agency planned to achieve staffing cuts and costs savings in the next three fiscal years, the document highlighted workforce reductions already underway. The "SEC has already used a variety of tools to achieve efficiencies," the memo said, referring to early retirement and resignation programs. It also said that, in addition to voluntary departures, the SEC had "eliminated over 550 authorized positions," leaving agency headcount at that point at 4,300 and falling. "This is below the lowest headcount level during the president's first term in office," it added. Agency data previously released to Reuters shows that by April 600 people had taken the administration's various buyout offers. The SEC last month asked Congress to approve funding for the coming fiscal year that would roughly preserve staffing at around 4,100 full-time positions. In response to a query about working with Congress on agency restructuring, the Uyeda plan pointed out that legally any "significant" restructuring required consultation with the House and Senate appropriations committees and that major funding shifts required those committees' approval. Sign in to access your portfolio

A new COVID-19 variant, vaccine changes: What to know in 2025
A new COVID-19 variant, vaccine changes: What to know in 2025

USA Today

time2 hours ago

  • USA Today

A new COVID-19 variant, vaccine changes: What to know in 2025

A new COVID-19 variant, vaccine changes: What to know in 2025 Show Caption Hide Caption RFK Jr. says COVID-19 vaccine no longer recommended for some The COVID-19 vaccine is no longer recommended for healthy children and pregnant women, HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. says. Like it or not, COVID-19 is still a public health issue five years after the start of the pandemic flipped the nation, and the world, on its head. Changing vaccination guidelines, ever-evolving variants and strains, threats to health insurance and more mean COVID is still very much a regular conversation on the lips of lawmakers, regulators and the general public. More than 40,000 positive tests were reported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in May, and while hospitalizations and deaths are fortunately down significantly since the pandemic's peak, vulnerable people are still grappling with limiting their risk amid changing practices. Here is a brief recap of the status of COVID cases, variants and vaccines in the U.S. as of June 4, 2025. Where do COVID cases currently stand in the US? According to the most recent data on the CDC's COVID Data Tracker dashboard, there were 735 confirmed COVID-19 deaths in May 2025 as of May 24. In the four weeks leading up to May 24, 3% of 1,344,681 COVID tests administered nationwide were positive. New NB.1.8.1 COVID variant In January, a new COVID-19 variant known as NB.1.8.1 was first detected in China. As of mid-May, the variant had reached 10.7% of global reported COVID-19 cases, according to the World Health Organization (WHO). As of May 27, less than 20 cases of NB.1.8.1 had been reported in the U.S., a CDC spokesperson told USA TODAY. This figure is too low to be added to the CDC's COVID Data Tracker dashboard, the spokesperson added, though they did not clarify the threshold for adding new variants to the dashboard. New COVID variant in China: Here's what to know about NB.1.8.1 NB.1.8.1 is one of the latest variants of COVID-19, a "slightly upgraded version" of the LP.8.1 variant that is prominent right now, Subhash Verma, microbiology and immunology professor at the University of Nevada, Reno, previously told USA TODAY. For comparison, LP.8.1 made up 70% of reported COVID-19 cases in the U.S. between April 26 and May 10, as reported by the CDC. Verma said NB.1.8.1 may be able to be transferred more easily than LP.8.1. Additionally, he said that NB.1.8.1 is able to evade antibodies created by vaccines or past infections more easily than LP.8.1. The variant has similar symptoms to other strains, including fever or chills, cough, shortness of breath or difficulty breathing, sore throat, congestion or a runny nose, new loss of taste or smell, fatigue, muscle or body aches, headache, nausea or vomiting. Vaccine back-and-forth: Who can get it and will there be new boosters? Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said on May 27 that the COVID-19 vaccine would no longer be included in the CDC's recommended immunization schedule for healthy children and pregnant women, a move that broke with previous expert guidance and bypassed the normal scientific review process. Under the changes, the only people who will be recommended for COVID-19 vaccines are those over 65 and people with existing health problems. This could make it harder for others who want the COVID-19 vaccine to get it, including health care workers and healthy people under 65 with a vulnerable family member or those who want to reduce their short-term risk of infection. RFK changes vaccine recommendations: Want a COVID vaccine? It could cost you $200. Insurance coverage typically follows federal recommendations, so anyone who is healthy and under 65 is likely to have to pay out of pocket to get the shot, which runs about $200, if they can get it. It's not clear what insurance companies will do about the new recommendations. RFK Jr. is a vaccine skeptic known for making false claims about vaccination and other medical practices. Under his leadership and the Trump administration, the FDA canceled the advisory meeting of independent experts who usually gather to formulate new flu shots annually and nixed a contract with Moderna to develop a bird flu vaccine amid the spread. He also pushed false claims about MMR vaccines as measles, previously eradicated in the U.S., began erupting in states across the country, causing the first death in a decade. It is not yet known how accessible the COVID-19 vaccine will be moving forward. Contributing: Karen Weintraub, Sudiksha Kochi, USA TODAY; Reuters

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