
Vaccine critics head to Capitol Hill
Presented by
With Lauren Gardner
Driving The Day
TAKING THE ANTI-VAX TEMPERATURE — A Senate investigations panel hearing today could help gauge how the anti-vaccine movement — and members of Congress — feel about HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s moves on vaccines so far.
The Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs subcommittee hearing on how 'health officials downplayed and hid myocarditis and other adverse events' associated with Covid-19 vaccines comes a day after federal health officials released a new framework for vaccines. The FDA also said it would limit approvals of future Covid vaccines to adults 65 and older or people with an underlying condition, a marked change from the broad-based recommendations of the past several years.
Why it matters: Amid a growing distrust of vaccines and the medical community, there's also been a growing divide in the Make America Healthy Again initiative: those who are pleased with how Kennedy — who leads the movement to combat chronic diseases — has moved to reevaluate vaccines versus those who want him to go further.
In recent weeks, wellness influencer Dr. Casey Means has faced conservative backlash after she was nominated to be U.S. surgeon general, partly for not being anti-vaccine enough, The Washington Post reported.
Since his confirmation, Kennedy has falsely claimed MMR vaccines contain aborted fetus debris, given noncommittal statements on measles prevention before promoting vaccination and said vaccines aren't safety tested enough.
However, as he promised before becoming secretary, he's stopped short of outright calling for certain vaccines to be pulled from the market.
The witnesses at today's hearing represent a more extreme contingency of vaccine skeptics, and their testimony could show how they feel about Kennedy's restraint. They include:
— Aaron Siri, a vaccine injury lawyer and close ally of Kennedy's. Siri has challenged Covid vaccine mandates and petitioned the FDA to rescind the approval of polio vaccines. He was Kennedy's personal attorney.
— Cardiologist Peter McCollough, who's been accused of spreading Covid vaccine misinformation and falsely linking the vaccine to deaths by misrepresenting federal data. McCollough is also chief scientific officer of a supplement and telehealth company whose CEO recently filed an ethics complaint against Kennedy adviser Calley Means.
— Obstetrician James Thorp, who, with McCollough, has urged a moratorium on Covid vaccines in pregnancy, falsely claiming they lead to increased risk of miscarriage. The new FDA plan lists pregnancy as an underlying condition.
— Orthopedic surgeon Joel Wallskog, who founded a vaccine injury advocacy group after he said he received a spinal cord injury following a Covid shot.
Also testifying is Dr. Jordan Vaughn, who treats long Covid and vaccine injuries, and Democratic Hawaii Governor Josh Green, a doctor who was critical of Kennedy's confirmation due to his anti-vaccine advocacy.
Key context: The FDA added a warning to Covid vaccine fact sheets in 2021 about myocarditis, or inflammation of the heart muscle, after a CDC safety panel determined a 'likely association' between the mRNA shots and the condition. The CDC says cases are rare but are most likely to be observed in young males.
WELCOME TO WEDNESDAY PULSE. Former President Joe Biden's diagnosis of advanced prostate cancer has ignited conversation about how his cancer was caught so late. Some experts say it could be because of recommendations against screening for men over 70. Send your tips, scoops and feedback to ccirruzzo@politico.com and khooper@politico.com and follow along @ChelseaCirruzzo and @Kelhoops.
In Congress
BIG BEAUTIFUL BILL CBO SCORE — More than 8.6 million more people could lose their health insurance if a draft portion of the House GOP's party-line megabill is implemented, according to an estimate from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office released Tuesday, POLITICO's Ben Leonard and Robert King report.
While the bill would lead to nearly $800 billion in savings over 10 years — 7.6 million people would lose Medicaid benefits and 1 million would lose plans purchased through the Affordable Care Act marketplace.
Among that group, 1.4 million people would lose health coverage from provisions under consideration for inclusion in the bill that would bar federal payments in Medicaid for people whose immigration status hasn't been verified.
Why it matters: The latest projections from the congressional scorekeeper come at a delicate moment in the negotiations around the final text of President Donald Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' of tax cuts and extensions, border security investments, energy policies and more.
Republicans across the conference are increasingly wary about the political blowback of cuts to Medicaid specifically, with Trump telling members in a closed-door GOP conference meeting early Tuesday not to 'fuck around with Medicaid.'
RUBIO DEFENDS FOREIGN AID CUTS — Secretary of State Marco Rubio pushed back on Democratic senators' claims Tuesday that global health and food-assistance cuts have killed hundreds of thousands of children in the world's poorest countries, POLITICO's Carmen Paun reports.
In his first appearance before lawmakers since billionaire Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency dismantled the U.S. Agency for International Development, Rubio took responsibility for those decisions and said he reviewed line by line the contracts and grants that were canceled and those that were retained.
Appearing before two Senate committees Tuesday to defend a halving of the State Department's budget for the 2026 fiscal year, as proposed by the White House, Rubio gave few explanations for the freeze and cancellation of global health grants and contracts over the last four months.
The secretary didn't explain why the State Department planned to cut all funding to Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, which helps low-income countries buy and deliver vaccines. But he insisted that 'we are still doing vaccines,' mentioning vaccines for malaria.
He also said that 85 percent of the grants and contracts under the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, or PEPFAR, were operational.
What's next: Rubio will face two House committees today — Foreign Affairs and the Appropriations Subcommittee on National Security, Department of State and Related Programs.
AROUND THE AGENCIES
SOMETHING TO TALC ABOUT — A panel of scientists told FDA Commissioner Marty Makary on Tuesday that there's broad consensus that talc is likely carcinogenic in some forms and increases inflammation — properties that could justify attempts to remove the additive from the food and drug supply, Lauren reports.
The expert roundtable at FDA headquarters acknowledged there are still scientific unknowns about the risks of ingesting talc, which is used in some pharmaceuticals as a filler and in some candies and gums. But they said enough safety concerns exist — as do safer alternatives for drugmakers — that warrant a shift away from its use.
While Makary acknowledged the lack of data on whether talc is implicated in several chronic diseases affecting the gut, he said enough evidence suggests the issue 'deserves a hard look by the FDA.'
'I'm not suggesting that talc is the driver of our chronic disease epidemic,' he said. 'But if we generally believe it's pro-inflammatory and kids are ingesting it, aside from the potential cancer-causing effects, shouldn't there be reason for concern?'
What's next: It's unclear whether and how the discussion might inform FDA action.
'Any future regulatory decisions will be made only after further scientific analysis and careful consideration of all available evidence,' HHS spokesperson Andrew Nixon said.
MAHA LEADERS TO KENNEDY: STAND FIRM — Make America Healthy Again leaders are pushing back against the pesticides industry and members of Congress concerned that an upcoming White House report will target the chemicals used by farmers.
A letter to Kennedy today from MAHA leaders, including former Kennedy campaign finance director Dave Murphy and Zen Honeycutt, executive director of Moms Across America, urges Kennedy to 'stand firm' against a farmer-led petition and a letter from 79 Republican members of Congress that ask the secretary not to discredit safety-tested pesticides in a MAHA Commission review to be released this week.
The pushback comes after Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-Miss.) warned Kennedy during a Senate Appropriations Committee on Tuesday that the report better not target the chemicals without definitive proof they cause disease.
'It's going to be a shame if the MAHA Commission issues a report suggesting, without substantial facts and evidence, that our government got things terribly wrong when it reviewed a number of crop-protection tools and deemed them to be safe,' Hyde-Smith told Kennedy, referencing the Make America Healthy Again panel he leads.
Kennedy denied that the report would target American farmers. 'The report will not put a single farmer in this country out of business,' he said, adding: 'We are not going to do anything to jeopardize that business model.'
Names in the News
James Swann is now director of communications at America's Essential Hospitals. He previously was director of communications and public affairs at AHIP.
WHAT WE'RE READING
The New York Times reports on a new system to evaluate traumatic brain injuries.
POLITICO's David Lim reports on new details on the Trump administration's most favored nations policy.
The Associated Press reports on how blood and urine biomarkers can reveal how much ultraprocessed foods we eat.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
32 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - Trump-Musk divorce threatens the president and the entire Republican Party
Few expected the relationship between President Trump and Elon Musk to survive four years, but the spectacular collapse of this partnership has shocked even seasoned observers with its speed and intensity. Now, as two of the world's most powerful men openly clash, there are seismic implications for the country as a whole and the Republican Party specifically. Put another way, not only does this fissure expose cracks in the GOP and MAGA coalition, it's also a considerable threat to Republicans' midterms hopes and Trump's signature legislation. The fight, which began two weeks ago when Musk expressed 'disappointment' with Trump's 'one big, beautiful' bill had initially been confined to disagreements over the legislation, rather than personal attacks. Then, on Thursday afternoon, it escalated in unprecedented, dramatic fashion. Following Trump's recent comment that he would have won Pennsylvania without Musk's help, Musk replied 'Without me, Trump would have lost the election, Dems would control the House and Republicans would be 51-49 in the Senate.' That was just Musk's opening salvo against the man he spent roughly $300 million to get elected. The tech billionaire then went on a blistering war path. He claimed Trump was on 'the Epstein list,' supported impeachment — a touchy subject for the twice-impeached Trump — and claimed that tariffs would cause a recession. Not content with attacking Trump, Musk has also threatened to fund primary challenges to Republicans who support the bill, and has criticized both Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) and Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-La.). With unprecedented speed, Musk went from the man who could pour hundreds of millions into Republican coffers to Republicans' enemy number one. Influential commentator Steve Bannon pushed for Musk's deportation, claiming he's an illegal alien, and Trump threatened to cancel all government contracts with Musk's multiple companies, saying Musk 'went CRAZY.' Whether or not the rumors of an impending détente between the two is enough to heal the rupture remains to be seen, but it's unlikely that all of the pieces will ever get put back together. Given Musk's deep pockets and control of social media platform X, where he has a cult-like following, Trump and the Republicans now find themselves in a treacherous spot at a precarious time. Indeed, even before the dramatic escalation, Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' was in limbo in the Senate. As Alexander Bolton noted in this publication prior to Thursday's blowup, Trump's bill is 'losing momentum in the Senate in the face of blistering attacks from Elon Musk.' To that end, Musk's criticisms of the bill and threats to primary its Republican supporters has already led two House Republicans who voted for the bill, Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) and John Rose (R-Tenn.), to come out against some of it. It appears that this fight has brought some Republicans back into Trump's fold. Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas), who had been opposed to the bill prior to its passage in the House, condemned Musk, saying he 'crossed the line.' And Rep. Tim Burchett (R-Tenn), another House conservative, dismissed Musk's influence, saying he is 'just another shiny object.' For their part, Republican senators who may have had doubts about Trump's signature legislation now risk being seen as taking Musk's side and being disloyal to the president. However, it would be a mistake to overlook the implications of the breakup or the dangers for Republicans. If he wants, Musk could very easily fund primaries against vulnerable GOP House members, and his control of X gives him unprecedented influence over the media ecosystem. Further, Musk's influence among the Silicon Valley cohort that moved stridently to the right in 2024 could peel off a new group of Republican voters and donors. In that same vein, there are possible electoral consequences for Republicans, even if tempers between Trump and Musk cool down. Trump was counting on the bill's passage to be a significant political tailwind that would boost his polling numbers and Republicans' midterm hopes, particularly given the ongoing chaos over tariffs and trade policy. Now, whichever version of the bill eventually passes, Republicans look like the party of chaos. It is entirely possible that this ongoing feud dents voters' confidence in Republicans' ability to competently govern, something Democrats are clearly hoping for. As the Wall Street Journal reported, Democrats are 'reveling' about the fight, with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) reposting Musk's attacks and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) taking digs at the 'GOP civil war.' To be sure, despite Musk's efforts, it remains likely that a version of Trump's 'one, big, beautiful bill' will still pass, but Republicans now have a bigger headache. Ultimately, divorces are always messy, but the Trump-Musk divorce is unprecedented, and it could not have come at a worse time for Republicans. With razor-thin margins in the House and the absence of Trump's much-touted trade bills, it poses the most significant threat to Republicans' midterm hopes, and by extension, the rest of Trump's term. Douglas E. Schoen and Carly Cooperman are pollsters and partners with the public opinion company Schoen Cooperman Research based in New York. They are co-authors of the book, 'America: Unite or Die.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
32 minutes ago
- Yahoo
These Presidential Breakups From History Have a Lesson for Elon Musk
This week, the vaunted political marriage between President Donald Trump and multipreneur Elon Musk blew up in spectacular fashion, as both men — once a seemingly unstoppable force — traded barbs on their respective social media platforms. 'Without me, Trump would have lost the election,' Musk posted on X. 'Elon was wearing thin, I asked him to leave,' Trump retorted on Truth Social. The blowup devolved into Musk saying Trump is in the Epstein files and the president's minions calling on him to deport Musk, a South African immigrant and naturalized citizen of the United States. Not since the Bennifer breakup — the first or second one, reader's choice — has a relationship's demise attracted such rapturous attention, especially in politics. But we have been here before. Presidents have long enjoyed symbiotic relationships with captains of industry and media. This isn't the first time such a relationship came to a bitter end. If history offers any insight, it's that these breakups always end better for the president than the mogul. Elon Musk is the richest man in the world, but the presidency comes with greater power and prestige. Just ask Nicholas Biddle. Biddle was a wealthy and influential Philadelphia financier who served as president of the Second Bank of the United States from 1823 until its closure in the 1830s. Born into a prominent family, he parlayed inherited wealth and social connections to become a central figure in America's early financial system. Under his leadership, the bank became a powerful and stabilizing force in the national economy, controlling credit and regulating state banks. Most historians today regard it as a successful precursor to the national banking system that emerged many decades later. Biddle was also the perfect embodiment of the nation's monied class. He viewed 'men with no property to assess and no character to lose' as social inferiors — so it was no surprise that he would eventually come to blows with President Andrew Jackson, an avowed populist. But for the better part of 1830 and 1831, Biddle put on a charm offensive. Even as he lined up support in Congress for the bank's re-charter, he attempted to ingratiate himself with the president, who in turn fired off vague smoke signals indicating that he was open to a dialogue. Jackson met with Biddle repeatedly and expressed no strong opposition to the bank — at least not publicly. Biddle, in turn, wrote flattering letters to and about the president and attempted to work closely with Jackson's key allies, including Senator Thomas Hart Benton and Vice President Martin Van Buren. More than a few people in the know were surprised that the bank president and populist chief executive seemed to have struck up a decent rapport. Until things inevitably turned sideways. When Jackson ultimately stuck to his populist guns and vetoed the bank's re-charter, Biddle, who was genuinely surprised by the move, undertook a furious and public effort to overturn the decision. He told Senator Henry Clay, an ally, that Jackson's message announcing the veto was 'really a manifesto of anarchy, such as Marat or Robespierre might have issued to the mob of Faubourg.' Jackson escalated the conflict in 1833 when he ordered that all federal government deposits be removed from the bank and placed in selected state banks. His goal was to drain the bank of its influence and effectively dismantle it before its charter expired in 1836. The ensuing debate was public and polarizing. Jackson announced his policy in a series of fiery public statements and annual messages to Congress, framing it as a defense of the common people against a 'monied aristocracy.' Biddle, meanwhile, defended the bank in editorials, letters and congressional testimony. Newspapers across the country took sides, and the issue became a litmus test of political loyalty: You were either with Jackson and democratic populism or with Biddle and financial conservatism. Biddle, who boasted that he had 'been for years in the daily exercise of more personal authority than any President habitually enjoys,' soon found his life in a downward spiral. His reputation, once that of a brilliant financial statesman and intellectual, was left in ruins as the bank's closure generated financial problems for its shareholders. Although he had long enjoyed the status of a cultured gentleman — financial engineer, patron to artists and writers — he grew politically toxic and isolated. After the bank's collapse, Biddle was sued for fraud and mismanagement. He was arrested on related charges in 1841 but never convicted. Still, the litigation and disgrace consumed his remaining years. Although he had once been wealthy, his fortune dwindled, and he died in 1844 at the age of 58, a broken man — largely forgotten and discredited in the eyes of the public. Jackson, of course, went on to serve two terms in office. His decision to kill the bank and remove the reserves threw the country into a massive financial panic — but that problem, as well as the blame for it, fell to his successor, Van Buren. Another case in point: William Randolph Hearst, the newspaper publisher, early movie mogul and two-term member of Congress. In the late 1890s and early 1900s, Theodore Roosevelt and Hearst shared a mutually beneficial, if uneasy, relationship. Hearst's newspapers, particularly the New York Journal, were strong proponents of the Spanish-American War, and through its sensationalist accounts of that conflict — critics derided it as 'Yellow Journalism' — his media empire made a national hero of TR, whose famous charge at San Juan Hill might never have been famous at all if not for Hearst. Though they overlapped ideologically on issues like trust-busting and anti-corruption — and, of course, a muscular foreign policy — their alliance was more tactical than personal. Roosevelt reportedly found Hearst vulgar and untrustworthy, while Hearst saw Roosevelt as an ambitious politician, lacking gravitas. Their mutually beneficial relationship crumbled when Hearst grew too big for his britches. The media mogul, who served two terms in Congress and made unsuccessful runs for mayor of New York City and governor of New York, complained that Roosevelt was 'a creation of newspaper notoriety.' He had made Roosevelt a famous man and assumed he could use that power to replace him in the White House. A bumbled run for the presidency in 1904 disabused Hearst of that illusion, but his acid relationship with Roosevelt only grew worse. The split became unmistakable after Hearst published inflammatory articles and editorials suggesting that President William McKinley's assassination was the inevitable result of capitalist corruption — a line of rhetoric that Roosevelt, deeply loyal to McKinley's legacy, found abhorrent. 'Wide and equitable distribution of wealth is essential to a nation's prosperous growth and intellectual development,' Hearst argued. 'And that distribution is brought about by the labor union more than any other agency of our civilization.' Roosevelt, in turn, called Hearst a 'swollen-headed liar' and accused his newspapers of fueling anarchist violence. Though Hearst's newspaper empire once dominated American public discourse, its credibility and power began to erode in the years after his split with Roosevelt, as yellow journalism fell into public disrepute. Moreover, his strident opposition to U.S. entry into World War I and later sympathy for fascist regimes in the 1930s cost him public and political goodwill. The 1930s saw his business empire drowning in debt. While he didn't exactly die in penury or obscurity, he spent his remaining years relatively quietly, in sharply diminished material circumstances. Finally, there is the case of Joseph Kennedy. Born to a well-connected Irish-American family in Boston, Kennedy parlayed early success in banking into lucrative ventures in shipbuilding, real estate, Hollywood film production and the stock market, where he made (and managed to preserve) a fortune by anticipating the 1929 crash. By the early 1930s, Kennedy was one of the richest men in America and increasingly influential in Democratic politics. He supported Franklin D. Roosevelt's 1932 campaign and was rewarded with a series of key appointments, ironically, as the first chair of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in 1934. FDR saw Kennedy as the ideal regulator — someone who knew Wall Street's tricks and could, therefore, police it. Their relationship, cordial but pragmatic, reflected a mutual recognition of each other's political instincts and usefulness. When FDR appointed Kennedy to serve as U.S. ambassador to Britain — the first Irish Catholic to occupy the position — Kennedy began to envision himself as FDR's successor in the White House. That, of course, was not to be. While stationed in London, Kennedy grew deeply pessimistic about Britain's chances against Nazi Germany and became a leading voice for American isolationism, repeatedly breaking with the administration and warning against U.S. entry into another European war. His public statements, including a notorious comment in 1940 that 'democracy is finished in England,' outraged British officials and embarrassed the Roosevelt administration. FDR, who was moving steadily toward intervention and aid to the Allies, saw Kennedy's defeatism and political freelancing as liabilities. So, too, was Kennedy's virulent antisemitism, which placed him out of step with the increasingly liberal Democratic party. Their relationship collapsed entirely in 1940, when the White House compelled Kennedy to resign. FDR, who had once valued Kennedy's political acumen and fundraising prowess, now viewed him as a demagogue with alarming wealth and influence. As the American public rallied behind the president after the Japanese attack on Pearl Habor, Kennedy's future in public life dimmed. He turned his ambitions toward helping his oldest son, Joe Jr., achieve what he no longer could: the presidency. And when Joe Jr. perished in the war, his focus turned to another son, John F. Kennedy. To be sure, Musk has a lot going for him. He owns one of the most powerful media platforms in the country. He is the wealthiest man in the world. His companies have been singularly successful and provide him clout with foreign governments in need of anything from satellite capabilities to fight a war, to rockets able to reach space. But he's not the president — particularly this president, who has arrogated to himself unprecedented powers. Much like the rich men who came before him, Musk may soon learn that there is no breaking with the White House and coming out whole. It hasn't worked before, and if history is any guide, it seems unlikely to work today.
Yahoo
32 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Corporation for Public Broadcasting can keep board members despite judge's ruling
By Jonathan Stempel (Reuters) -A federal judge said that three board members of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting can keep their seats, even as he denied the nonprofit a preliminary injunction to block U.S. President Donald Trump from removing them. In a decision on Sunday, U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss in Washington, D.C. said the nonprofit recently used indirect authority it obtained from Congress to protect its independence, by changing its bylaws to make it harder to remove directors at will, including by Trump. "The President is not free to remove directors and then unilaterally to appoint their replacements, thereby using his power to remove as an effective tool for altering board policy," Moss wrote. "Rather, the President's appointment authority is tempered by the requirement that he proceed only with the advice and consent of the Senate." Moss nonetheless said the CPB was unlikely to prevail on the merits, and could not show irreparable harm because it could still function and "in all likelihood" has blocked Trump from exercising unilateral authority to remove board members. Created by Congress in 1967, the CPB provides financial support for the Public Broadcasting Service, National Public Radio and more than 1,500 locally managed public radio and TV stations. It sued after Trump fired three of its five directors -- Diane Kaplan, Laura Ross and Thomas Rothman - ostensibly without providing a reason. PBS and NPR are also suing to block the Trump administration from canceling their federal funding. "We are very pleased that the court recognized CPB is an independent, non-profit corporation, free from governmental control or influence," CPB President Patricia Harrison said in a statement. Harrison said the nonprofit looks forward to continuing its work "to ensure accurate, unbiased and nonpartisan public media is available for all Americans." CPB received $535 million of federal funding for its current fiscal year. The White House and many Republicans have argued that the government should not provide funding to support programming that they consider too liberal. A White House spokesperson on Monday said CPB is "creating media to support a particular political party on the taxpayers' dime. Therefore, the President is exercising his lawful authority to limit funding to NPR and PBS." The case is Corporation for Public Broadcasting et al v Trump et al, U.S. District Court, District of Columbia, No. 25-01305.