logo
RFK Jr. wants to allow more experimental therapies, acknowledging health risks and threat of ‘charlatans'

RFK Jr. wants to allow more experimental therapies, acknowledging health risks and threat of ‘charlatans'

Boston Globe2 days ago

'And of course you're going to get a lot of charlatans, and you're going to get people who have bad results,' he added. 'And ultimately, you can't prevent that either way. Leaving the whole thing in the hands of pharma is not working for us.'
Advertisement
Kennedy cited his own experience at a clinic in Antigua, where he said he received a stem cell treatment that 'enormously' eased his neurological condition, spasmodic dysphonia, which affects his voice and has few treatment options.
Get Starting Point
A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday.
Enter Email
Sign Up
If Kennedy does permit broader use of unauthorized or experimental therapies, he would be reversing long-standing efforts by the FDA to monitor and sometimes police the emerging field. Experts, including some who support alternative medicine, worry that without safeguards, an expansion of such treatments could undermine legitimate development of new therapies.
The FDA now narrowly permits stem cell therapies to treat blood and immune disorders.
Nearly a decade ago, the field was so loosely regulated that the agency pursued court actions to shut down rogue clinics using unauthorized treatments for a wide array of ailments. Some providers in the United States and in other countries continue to offer experimental stem cell therapies for everything from autism to Alzheimer's to erectile dysfunction.
Advertisement
The latest move reflects an expansion of Kennedy's drive to dismantle federal health policy to reflect his long-held views, which had so far focused mainly on vaccines, chronic diseases, food dyes and fluoride. A push to open up the field of unregulated stem cell infusions meshes with his oft-stated contention that the FDA is a 'sock puppet' for major drug companies and faces a crisis of distrust. Wellness industry products, he has claimed, are unfairly sidelined.
A spokesperson for the Department of Health and Human Services did not respond to requests for comment.
Kennedy's statements alarmed experts on the field of sometimes dangerous stem cell infusions -- who noted that many of Kennedy's allies endorse wellness products ranging from red-light therapy to magnetism.
'It's a complete abdication of protection of the public, letting these grifters go forward,' said Timothy Caulfield, a research chair in health law and policy at the University of Alberta in Canada. 'For him to say, 'There are problems with Big Pharma, so we want our opportunity to be bad actors too,' it doesn't make any sense.'
One leading expert group, the International Society for Stem Cell Research, reviewed Kennedy's podcast statements and condemned the approach as potentially allowing products that are 'sometimes contaminated with pathogens and are often marketed with scientifically implausible claims.'
'It is critical that the FDA maintain its regulatory authority to protect Americans from these potentially harmful and deceptive products,' the society said in a statement.
Advertisement
On Thursday, a panelist appearing at an FDA meeting on cell and gene therapies raised a concern about 'snake oil' treatments.
Dr. Vinay Prasad, the agency's director of the center for biologics evaluation research, responded, 'We have to regulate the bad actors. We can't let that taint what we do here at the FDA.'
Kennedy, who also attended the event, voiced full support for the researchers and biotech executives working on gene therapies for rare diseases, including those who made history by creating a custom gene therapy for an infant named KJ.
'We're going to do everything in our power to sweep away the barriers from you getting those solutions to market and getting them funded, and do everything that we can to support you all,' Kennedy said.
On Brecka's podcast in May, Kennedy cited other products that he'd like to see more of, including chelation treatment, which was discussed in a 2015 book edited by him that focused on widely debunked theories about mercury in vaccines and autism and cites 'evidence of chelation's benefits' from a few small studies. One 5-year-old Pennsylvania boy died in 2005 from cardiac arrest after a doctor tried to treat his autism with chelation.
Neither Kennedy nor the FDA has released a formal plan to change agency standards for stem cell treatments, which have typically been reviewed by the agency as individual therapies to treat a specific disease.
Widening overall access could also happen informally if the agency decided to relax enforcement, an approach the FDA used in the past to indicate that it wouldn't crack down on unauthorized products. During the pandemic, for example, the agency allowed providers to retrofit infusion pumps and ventilators to treat hordes of sick patients.
Advertisement
During the first Trump administration, the agency's commissioner, Dr. Scott Gottlieb, escalated enforcement against stem cell providers whom he described in 2017 as 'unscrupulous actors who have seized on the clinical promise of regenerative medicine.'
The FDA followed through with lawsuits seeking to stop some stem cell providers, including one case that the government won on appeal in the fall. In that case, the agency alleged that one provider, the California Stem Cell Treatment Center, was offering a drug without FDA approval by taking stem cells from a person's fat, manipulating them and infusing them as a remedy for Alzheimer's disease, cancer and arthritis.
The agency classifies stem cell treatments as a 'biologic' and approves them much like a drug after careful studies of safety and effectiveness. But the FDA does make exceptions: It does not regulate some treatments if providers say they are extracting and then reinserting a person's cells with minimal manipulation.
In March, Kennedy convened a meeting with leaders in the stem cell field. Two people who attended said the gathering was a fact-finding effort to explore a safe way to increase access.
To Dr. Noah Raizman, who attended the meeting on behalf of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, Kennedy's new pronouncement 'sounds a little more casual and a little bit more emboldened.'
In the podcast, Kennedy said that consumers should be able to navigate the industry's claims.
'We don't want to have the Wild West,' Kennedy said. 'We want to make sure that information is out there. But we also want to respect the intelligence of the American people -- the capacity of people who explore the outcomes that are going to benefit them the most.'
Advertisement
In recent years, stem cell treatments have caused harm in the United States and abroad. Experts at the Pew Research Center tallied more than 350 cases of side effects including life-threatening blood infections, heart attacks and tumors. One Boston neurosurgeon discovered a huge mass of bloody tissue in the lower spine of a man who had received unproven stem cell treatments in Mexico, China and Argentina. Three patients were blinded after stem cell treatments at a Florida clinic. The FDA prevailed in getting a court order to stop the clinic from operating.
The field of stem cell treatments is so complex that the Harvard Medical School created a free course to help doctors navigate patient questions, said Insoo Hyun, the director of life sciences at the Museum of Science in Boston.
More than 110 stem cell clinical studies are advancing under regulatory oversight. In one, scientists at the National Institutes of Health are using retinal cells developed from patients' blood to try to treat vision loss in older adults -- and follow them for 15 years.
In another study aimed at helping patients with Parkinson's disease, researchers at a biotech company in California are exploring the safety of infusing dopamine-producing neurons in a region of the brain that controls the body's movements. A Chinese company is studying a treatment for heart failure that involves transplanting cardiac muscle cells into the heart.
Some providers sidestep the costly, yearslong process of careful work that can lead to an FDA approval. Among them is Dr. Chadwick Prodromos, a Chicago doctor who offers stem cell treatments in Antigua. Kennedy welcomed him warmly at the March meeting, Raizman recalled. Reached for comment, Prodromos' office said that he was in Antigua doing treatments and was not available.
Advertisement
In an April interview on YouTube, Prodromos said that he was still in touch with the FDA about stem cell treatments that could help people 'without allowing scams and things that aren't valid. And you know, it's a tricky proposition.'
A website for Prodromos' clinic says that he and colleagues offer injections in Antigua into the joints, back, neck, scalp, penis and pelvic floor for an array of conditions including autism, thinning hair and lupus. He uses AlloRX cells, which are derived from the umbilical cord, in a manner that in the United States would require an FDA-cleared clinical trial.
People can seek out unregulated treatments using their own cells that are processed, purified and amplified in different ways. They can also find treatments using others' cells that vary widely in quality and sterility.
Some low-quality clinics process cells in a back room, which is the opposite of a clinical-grade cell processing site. Hyun said he recently toured one in the Netherlands that used specialized air filtering, layers of gowns and a ban on bacteria-laden cellphones in their sterile area. 'It's kind of like you're entering a space station,' he said.
Ultimately, Caulfield said, many unauthorized stem cell providers adopt the language of biotech and regenerative medicine, post glowing patient testimonials and exploit patients who are desperate for a cure.
This article originally appeared in
.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Andrew Yang Is Ready to Team Up With Elon Musk
Andrew Yang Is Ready to Team Up With Elon Musk

Politico

time34 minutes ago

  • Politico

Andrew Yang Is Ready to Team Up With Elon Musk

Andrew Yang has reached out to Elon Musk with a sales pitch: Let's build a third party together. The former 2020 Democratic presidential candidate has been pushing his independent Forward Party for several years — and he sprang into action after Musk's feud with President Donald Trump erupted and Musk polled X users on whether they wanted a new political party. In an interview with POLITICO Magazine, Yang said he hasn't heard back from Musk yet, but he's optimistic. Yang also acknowledged he doesn't agree with Musk about everything, but said that his Forward Party should appeal to those across the political spectrum. And don't forget that Musk had endorsed Yang's previous presidential bid. Enormous hurdles exist to breaking through in America's two-party system. But Yang argued the American public is ready for a change, particularly if the effort gets help from the richest man in the world — who also happens to control a massive social media platform. 'Elon has built world-class companies from nothing more than an idea multiple times, and in this instance, you have the vast majority of Americans who are hungry for a new approach,' Yang said. 'I'm happy to spell it out for Elon or anyone else who wants to head down this road: A third party can succeed very quickly.' This conversation has been edited for length and clarity. I saw that you retweeted a post Elon Musk made about needing 'to create a new political party in America that actually represents the 80 percent in the middle.' Have you reached out directly to Musk about creating a new party or working with your Forward Party? I have reached out, and some mutual friends are also looking to connect us. Have you heard back yet? Not yet, but I assume he's been very busy. We have been of the opinion that America needed a new political party for a number of years, and so waiting another 24 hours is nothing. Is he someone you'd want to work with to build a third party? I want to work with people that recognize that America's political system has gone from dysfunctional to polarizing to even worse. And at this point, the fastest growing political movement in the United States is independents. They feel like neither party represents them, and the two-party system is not delivering what they want to see. And the two of you have seen dysfunction on both sides — you on the Democratic side and Musk on the Republican. If you think about what animates Elon, he wants to get us to Mars, and I feel that he's been driven these last several years by an opposition to 'wokeness,' by what he sees as excessive bureaucracy, and by waste and overspending in the federal government. And in our two-party system, he thought that Trump was the better choice. If you look at Musk's politics over the last number of years, he waited in line to meet Barack Obama, he endorsed me in a Democratic cycle, and even earlier in this cycle — 2024 — he was looking for an alternative to Trump. There are a number of things that I think Elon shares in common with a lot of other folks I talk to who want to see some kind of middle ground or balance. The problem is: In our two-party system, you get whipsawed either one direction or the other. I will say that the deficit in spending, neither party has done a good job of addressing it, because as soon as they're in power, they don't want to make the tough choices. You're coming politically from the center-left; Elon Musk is coming from arguably the hard right. How would you overcome your political differences? If you look at the Forward Party makeup, my co-chairs include Christine Todd Whitman, who was governor of New Jersey and EPA secretary under George W. Bush, and Kerry Healey, who was lieutenant governor of Massachusetts under Mitt Romney. And I would say that the three of us don't line up on every issue, but we're in lockstep on the fact that America's current political system is not delivering real solutions or results, and both parties are captive to perverse incentives. Anyone who wants to modernize and restore the American political system, so that it actually listens to people and communities, we can agree on that. And that is the mission. The fact is that the two parties do a great job of falsely segmenting us along some ideological spectrum, saying, 'Oh, you want this? You're over there. You want this? You're over there,' when in reality the current system is not going to deliver what either of those sides want. Unless what they want is strife and conflict and mistrust. But is that enough to maintain a third party or does there need to be a political or policy goal that propels the party forward? Are there any specific policies that you feel like you agree on with Musk? The three pillars that we're operating on are dignity, dynamism and democracy, which is something that most Americans can get behind. But in practical terms, if you can imagine three or four U.S. senators who are from a new party, they could work with either side to get things done and would become the most powerful legislators in the country, because their votes might be necessary to pass any legislation. And I dare say that you would have a much more interesting and balanced set of solutions as a result. What about his work to dismantle USAID and cause havoc in much of the federal government? Did you agree with that? One thing I found interesting was that a number of moderate Democrats signaled over the last 24 hours that they would be open to receiving Elon as an ally as a result of his feud with Donald Trump, despite him being essentially one of their primary boogeyman over the last number of weeks. I don't have to agree with everyone's past decisions in order to agree that the primary mission has to be getting our political system back in a place where it's actually responsive to both the views and the needs of the American people, and right now, we don't have that. Anyone who's kept up with me over the last number of years knows that I've been driven by the fact that AI is going to transform our economy in ways that push more and more Americans to the side. That is playing out before our eyes right now in real time, with [Anthropic CEO] Dario Amodei coming out saying that entry-level white collar work is going to be automated, and that we need to think bigger about solutions. I think that Dario is right. I've been making the same case since 2019, 2018. I'd ask anyone who is reading this right now, 'What is the current plan when it comes to the economic changes that are going to be brought by AI?' The answer is, 'Not much.' Because our current political class does not have to address that issue, or any of a panoply of other issues in order to keep power. They have done an expert job of gerrymandering the country into red zones and blue zones, such that all of us are looking up, wondering, 'What the heck is going on?' Speaking of AI, do you think Musk could be a good partner on that? If you look back at the [2020] cycle, he was openly saying that AI was going to have a massive impact, and he did endorse me while I was running as a Democrat on some of those solutions. Musk has become very polarizing to much of the country. Who are the people you think you'd attract if you built a third party with Musk? Again, people have come to the Forward Party from all different walks of life and different ideologies. Elon has a very, very significant following and megaphone, and you can see that with the number of people that have voted on his post about starting a third party. It's about 5.3 million votes, with 81 percent saying yes, it is time to create a new political party, and Forward has gotten thousands of new followers just in the last 24 hours, because we are the preeminent effort to modernize and rationalize America's broken political system. I'm thrilled that others are waking up. Do you think Elon Musk is actually serious about creating a new party? What do you think he wants out of all this? I haven't spoken to Elon recently, but I think there are several things that are animating him, and very, very high on his list is America's financial solvency. I think he's deeply frustrated by the fact that he wanted to reduce waste in government, and then the Republicans turn around and propose a bill that would increase the deficit by two and a half trillion dollars. If your goal is to have the government on a positive fiscal path, that's not the way to do it. I think Elon's frustration is shared by lots of other Americans who realize that when push comes to shove, politicians don't want to make the tough choices that would be necessary to put us on a sustainable path — certainly politicians from the current parties. I saw [JP Morgan CEO and Chair] Jamie Dimon speak the other day, and he seems to share similar concerns and had a number of very sensible proposals. But you realize that it would take a figure, in my view, who's not of the two major parties to make some of these solutions happen. Is that person Elon Musk? I think there are any number of people that if they were to be elected as an independent or a Forward Party member, they would then be able to propose the common-sense solutions that most Americans say we need. One figure that I'm very excited about that recently declared that he was running for governor of Michigan as an independent is [Detroit Mayor] Mike Duggan, who has turned around Detroit, and before that, turned around a hospital chain. Someone like Mayor Duggan would make very sensible choices for the state of Michigan, free of party constraints. You can imagine someone doing that at the national level. Millions of Americans would love to see that happen. I have a feeling that the right independent ticket could galvanize a tremendous amount of energy, because more and more Americans sense that the status quo isn't working and that neither party has our interests at heart or wants to solve the tougher problems. Elon Musk is clearly still very new to politics. Why do you think he knows what it would take to build a third party that could actually overcome all the hurdles that exist in our 2-party system? Elon has built world-class companies from nothing more than an idea multiple times, and in this instance, you have the vast majority of Americans who are hungry for a new approach, as evidenced by the overwhelming response to Elon's poll and to every other poll that shows that not only are half of Americans saying they're independent, but more than two thirds are saying that the current political system is not working. I'm happy to spell it out for Elon or anyone else who wants to head down this road: A third party can succeed very quickly. Just to throw some numbers out to you, there are over 500,000 locally elected officials around the country, and up to 70 percent of those races are not meaningfully contested. Up to 10 percent of those positions go unfilled, and thousands of those positions are technically non-partisan, which includes many, many mayors and county executives. So if the Forward Party were to simply start recruiting and contesting at scale, which you could do with a certain level of resources, you could have thousands, even tens of thousands, of locally elected officials within one cycle. You could have several U.S. senators and a very serious presidential ticket within the next several years. At some point you have to wonder, 'OK, when do the American people raise their hands and say, 'I get it. This system is not meant to deliver good things. It's meant to deliver me thinking that my neighbor is bad and out to get me'?' Eventually, enough of us have to get together and say, let's create a positive, independent political movement that can drive us towards solutions, and also is able to say, 'You and I don't agree on everything, but you're a good person. I believe in your good will.' I don't think that goodness or character are somehow confined to any one party or another. I don't think that people on the opposite side are my enemies, and let's create a system that actually will make us feel good about our future. Even if every last measure does not line up with me, I know that the people who are adopting it actually are making earnest, sincere efforts to move us forward. Do you think Musk is a good person? Or does the desire to recruit people who also want to create a third party trump any character assessments? I'm someone who tends to judge people by their actions more than anything else. And Elon Musk has done more for sustainability on this planet than virtually any other human, and that's something that I think is incredibly estimable and admirable. I've been in public life now for a number of years, and I'm sure I've said or done things that people can brandish and say, 'Oh, I disagree with this person.' I live my life trying to use actions as the guiding principle. I try to hold other people to a standard where actions and impacts are much more important than statements or misstatements. If Musk were serious about building a third party, what do you think the path would look like with the help of his money and social media platform? It would be very straightforward. I've spent several years looking at it. You can start with candidates like Mike Duggan, who are running as independents in very significant races, in this case, for the governorship of Michigan. You could energize tens of thousands of local candidates and wind up with thousands of elected officials very, very quickly. You could create a fulcrum in the U.S. Senate. I call it the Legislator Liberation Fund, where you could offer to buy out senators or members of Congress from their contract with their current party by funding their next election, and they could vote their conscience. There are a lot of legislators who are on the verge of retirement who might take that and say, 'Okay, I don't have to grovel before the donors for the last number of years. I can actually try and fix American politics.' There are multiple members of Congress I've spoken to whose ears are very, very open to that kind of offer. In the scheme of things, none of the things I'm talking about are that expensive for someone with a certain level of resources. I'll give you the opportunity to make a direct sales pitch to Musk: What would you say to him in this moment to get him on board and help fund the Forward Party or the creation of a new party? Elon, the political class will never get serious about putting America on a path to sustainability, and you've seen it up close. You know that if it's going to happen, it's going to be from some new force in American politics. Help us build it.

Egg recall over salmonella warning spans across nine states
Egg recall over salmonella warning spans across nine states

Yahoo

time35 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Egg recall over salmonella warning spans across nine states

Almost two million eggs have been recalled in the United States over concerns of salmonella contamination. The recall, announced on Friday by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, affects products distributed in nine states and is associated with various grocery store chains. According to the FDA, California-based August Egg Company of Hilmar is recalling 1,700,000 dozen brown cage-free and brown certified organic eggs due to potential contamination. The eggs were distributed from February 3 through May 15, with sell-by dates from March 4 to June 4, within California and Nevada. Products were distributed at locations including Save Mart, FoodMaxx, Lucky, Smart & Final, Safeway, Raleys, Food 4 Less, and Ralphs. Eggs were also distributed from February 3 through May 6 with sell-by dates from March 4 to June 19 to Walmart locations in California, Washington, Nevada, Arizona, Wyoming, New Mexico, Nebraska, Indiana, and Illinois. The recalled eggs will have the plant code number P-6562 or CA5330 printed on the carton or package, with Julian Dates between 32 and 126. The recalled retail eggs will be in fiber or plastic cartons, with the above codes printed on one side of the carton. Salmonella can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children, the frail or elderly, and others with weakened immune systems, according to the FDA. Healthy persons infected with Salmonella often experience fever, nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, and even bloody diarrhea. In rare circumstances, infection with Salmonella can result in more severe illnesses. A statement from August Egg Company read: 'It is important to know that when our processing plant identified this concern, we immediately began diverting all eggs from the plant to an egg-breaking facility, which pasteurizes the eggs and kills any pathogens. 'August Egg Company's internal food safety team is also conducting its own stringent review to identify what measures can be established to prevent this situation from recurring. 'We are committed to addressing this matter fully and to implementing all necessary corrective actions to ensure this does not happen again.'

US presidents ranked by their approval ratings when they left office
US presidents ranked by their approval ratings when they left office

Business Insider

time40 minutes ago

  • Business Insider

US presidents ranked by their approval ratings when they left office

President Donald Trump is seeking to rewrite US immigration policies, has reshaped how world leaders use social media, and has made historic changes to the federal workforce. But in his first term, he made history in a way he may wish to forget: He was the first president since Gallup began tracking presidential job approval in the 1930s to fail to exceed a 50% approval rating at any point during his term. In Gallup's latest poll, conducted during the first half of May, 43% of respondents said they approved of Trump's performance, down from 47% in polling conducted during the first six days of his second term in January. In the recent poll, 53% said they disapproved of his handling of the presidency. This number has held steady since March, a month rocked by leaked Signal chats and the economic shake-up of tariff policies. (A handful of people in each poll said they had no opinion of Trump's job performance.) For nearly a century, the polls have been used to measure the public's perception of US presidents' performance, with Gallup asking Americans: "Do you approve or disapprove of the way [the current president] is handling his job as president?" The American Presidency Project from the University of California, Santa Barbara, compiled the final Gallup ratings of each president's term from the past 70 years, signaling how popular each leader was when they left the Oval Office. See how US presidents from Harry Truman to Joe Biden rank in this end-of-term polling. We've ordered them from the lowest approval rating to the highest. Richard Nixon Approval rating: 24% Even though Nixon won the 1972 election in a historic landslide, the end of his presidency was tainted by the Watergate scandal that led him to resign on August 9, 1974, when faced with the threat of an impeachment and removal. Surveyed August 2 to 5, 1974, after the House Judiciary Committee passed articles of impeachment against the president but before he resigned, 66% of respondents to the Gallup poll said they disapproved of Nixon's presidency, the highest of any president on the list. Harry S. Truman Approval rating: 32% Assuming the presidency after Franklin D. Roosevelt's death, Truman served two terms covering the aftermath of World War II and the beginning of the Cold War, including the Korean War, which was widely unpopular and contributed to Truman's low approval rating by the end of his second term in 1953. When asked December 11 to 16, 1952, 56% of poll respondents said they disapproved of his handling of the presidency. Jimmy Carter Approval rating: 34% Carter had high approval ratings — and a disapproval rating in the single digits — during the early days of his term, but his handling of international affairs, such as the Iran hostage crisis in 1979, along with a struggling economy, ultimately made him unpopular by the end of his term. He lost the 1980 election to Ronald Reagan and faced a disapproval rating of 55% in polling conducted December 5 to 8, when he was readying to leave the White House. George W. Bush Approval rating: 34% Despite uniting the nation in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, Bush saw his public approval fade during his second term. His approval rating spiked after the 2001 terrorist attacks, the beginning of the Iraq War in 2003, and the capture of Saddam Hussein. After his reelection, his popularity began to decline as the Iraq War extended. His handling of Hurricane Katrina in 2005 and the onset of the 2008 financial crisis also contributed to his growing unpopularity. From January 9 to 11, 2009, as Bush prepared to hand over the presidency to Barack Obama, 61% of poll respondents said they disapproved of his handling of the presidency. Donald Trump Approval rating: 34% Trump's presidency was divisive from the start, as he entered the White House with an approval rating below 50%. He's the first president in modern history to never exceed 50% approval on the Gallup polls during his presidency. While his approval ratings dwindled over the course of his four years in office, his handling of the COVID-19 pandemic in particular came under scrutiny ahead of his loss in the 2020 election. His lowest approval ratings in office came during the final Gallup poll, conducted January 4 to 15, 2021. Most of that polling period took place immediately after the Capitol insurrection on January 6, and Trump faced a disapproval rating of 62%, the worst after Richard Nixon's at the time he left the office. Joe Biden Approval rating: 40% While Biden saw continuous approval ratings over 50% during his first six months in office, rises in inflation and illegal immigration, as well as the wars in Ukraine and Gaza, contributed to lowering approval ratings. His lowest-ranking Gallup poll, in which 36% of respondents said they approved of his handling of the role, came in July 2024, a month after his debate performance against Trump shifted focus toward his age and fitness for office. As he left office, in polls collected January 2 to 16, 2025, Biden received a disapproval rating of 54%. Lyndon B. Johnson Approval rating: 49% After assuming the presidency because of John F. Kennedy's assassination, Johnson won the 1964 election in a historic landslide, but he faced decreasing approval ratings over his handling of the Vietnam War. Low approval ratings, along with a divided party, led Johnson to withdraw from the presidential race in 1968. At the time of his withdrawal, 36% of poll respondents said they approved of his handling of the presidency. By the time he left the office, however, his ratings had gone up to 49% approval. In polling conducted January 1 to 6, 1969, 37% of respondents said they disapproved of his handling of the role, and 14% said they had no opinion, one of the higher percentages among the listed presidents. Gerald Ford Approval rating: 53% Assuming the presidency at the time of Nixon's resignation, Ford served as US president from August 1974 until January 1977, after he lost the election to Jimmy Carter. During his presidency, Ford faced mixed reviews, with his approval dropping after he pardoned Nixon and introduced conditional amnesty for draft dodgers in September 1974. Polled December 10 to 13, 1976, after he had lost the reelection to Jimmy Carter, 32% of respondents said they disapproved of Ford's handling of the presidency, and 15% said they had no opinion on it, the highest percentage of the listed presidents. George H. W. Bush Approval rating: 56% Though the elder Bush lost his reelection bid in the 1992 presidential election against Bill Clinton, the public opinion of him was positive by the end of his term. In the weeks before his nomination as the Republican candidate for the presidency in 1992, however, he had only a 29% approval rating, the lowest of his presidency. A recession and a reversal of his tax policy contributed to his drop in popularity. In polling conducted January 8 to 11, 1993, 37% of respondents said they disapproved of his handling of the presidency, while 56% said they approved. Barack Obama Approval rating: 59% Since the beginning of his presidency in 2009, Obama had a high approval rating for a modern-day president; he averaged nearly 47% approval over eight years. At his lowest point, in polling conducted September 8 to 11, 2011, 37% of poll respondents said they approved of his presidency, the decline most likely influenced by the president's healthcare policies and his handling of the 2008 economic crisis and the following rise in unemployment rates. In polls conducted January 17 to 19, 2017, when Obama was leaving office, 37% of respondents said they disapproved of his handling of the role, with 59% saying they approved. Dwight D. Eisenhower Approval rating: 59% After winning the 1952 election in a landslide, Eisenhower saw high approval ratings throughout his presidency, never dropping below the disapproval rating. Holding office during critical Cold War years, Eisenhower saw his stay positive throughout the end of his second term, with only 28% of respondents polled December 8 to 13, 1960, saying they disapproved of his handling of the presidency, the lowest of the presidents listed. Ronald Reagan Approval rating: 63% Reagan's strong leadership toward ending the Cold War and implementing his economic policies contributed to consistently positive ratings during his presidency and the subsequent election of his vice president, George H. W. Bush, as his successor to the presidency. By the time he left office, 29% of respondents in a Gallup poll conducted December 27 to 29, 1988, said they disapproved of his handling of the presidency. Bill Clinton Approval rating: 66% After winning the 1992 elections against the incumbent George H. W. Bush, Clinton saw high approval ratings throughout his presidency, though he faced mixed opinions at times during his first term because of his domestic agenda, including tax policy and social issues. Despite being impeached in 1998 by the House of Representatives over his testimony describing the nature of his relationship with Monica Lewinsky, Clinton continued to see positive approval ratings during his second term. Near the time he left the White House, he had an approval rating of 66%, the highest of all the presidents on this list. In the poll conducted January 10 to 14, 2001, 29% of respondents said they disapproved of his handling of the presidency.

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