One hundred days ago, near the end of August, I left my position as chief medical officer of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) alongside two colleagues. We left because we could no longer remain silent as scientific integrity was eroded and the nation’s public health infrastructure was dismantled under the leadership of Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS). At that time, we urged Congress, professional societies, and public health stakeholders to intervene before irreparable damage is done. I left full of hope.
For several weeks after my resignation, the nation paid attention. Misinformation coming from the secretary, chaos in responding to a measles outbreak, the unprecedented firing of members of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), and changes in how the CDC communicates with the public have come under scrutiny.
This public attention culminated with the Senate HELP committee hearing in September, where former CDC Director Susan Monarez told senators she was asked to approve vaccine recommendations and fire career scientists. I also testified that I learned about changes to CDC guidelines through tweets, that the Secretary was promoting unproven drugs during a measles outbreak, and that HHS leaders were making data requests outside of standard processes.
But today, 100 days later, things have not improved. They got worse. And Congress still hasn’t acted.
Earlier this summer, the Senate Appropriations Committee questioned the continued recruitment of political leaders to the CDC in their budget language. HHS has once again ignored congressional directives. Since September, the CDC has hired at least two additional political appointees, now bringing the number of political leaders to 14 and no career scientists in the director’s office. Acting CDC Director Jim O’Neill is neither a scientist nor a doctor. These new recruits, Mark Blaxill and Dr. Ralph Abraham, have publicly made anti-vaccine statements.
In October, we saw more layoffs – although some were ultimately reversed – of CDC staff, including those working on Ebola and measles responses. Additionally, with the secretary’s repeated calls for “gold standard science” and “radical transparency,” it was unclear why the ethics office, the office of the Institutional Review Board and the unit overseeing federal advisory committees were targeted.
Learn more: We are not ready for the next pandemic. This game proves it
The CDC website has gone from being a data-heavy site to pages with a political agenda. The “CDC Priorities” page now negatively mentions immigration, abortion, gender ideology, and harm reduction. Data and science should anchor the CDC, not ideology. Mentions of “mpox” were replaced with “monkey pox”, despite the WHO’s 2022 recommendation to use the former term to avoid stigma. And in November, CDC scientists woke up to a revised page on autism and vaccine safety, misrepresenting decades of research. Several health departments have now removed links to the CDC on their sites.
Sixteen strategic initiatives – developed and led by policymakers without scientific or programmatic review – were launched at a senior leadership meeting in November. Thanks to a widely shared PowerPoint presentation, I learned that some priorities, like “strengthening scientific rigor,” are driven not by scientists but by two political appointees: an aviation lawyer and a real estate agent with a self-published book about paradise.
ACIP’s December meeting reached an all-time low this week. The three hepatitis B vaccine presenters were not vaccine experts, and two of them had written a retracted paper on autism. Additionally, the Secretary of State’s ally, an anti-vaccine advocate named Aaron Siri, who previously called on the FDA to revoke approval of the polio vaccine, was given a platform to present the childhood vaccination schedule. We got a glimpse of this in September, when the new ACIP focused on the hypothetical risks of vaccines while downplaying the established benefits and voted to narrow recommendations for MMRV and COVID vaccines. The result has been less access to these vaccines for certain populations.
The consequences of the CDC’s new guidance are not theoretical. They appear in children’s hospital beds. We have seen new pediatric deaths from vaccine-preventable diseases, including whooping cough. Measles outbreaks that should have been stopped quickly continued due to suppressed messaging about vaccine safety and delay in action. This is not about failures of clinicians or health services. These are failures of federal leadership: predictable results when trusted scientific voices are replaced by ideological leaders. The country’s public health infrastructure is destabilized.
Learn more: What people think about vaccines is now largely political
Vaccines have become the most visible hot spot, but the deeper crisis is whether the United States will continue to have a science-driven public health agency capable of protecting the nation. What we have seen at the CDC is not reform. It is the weakening of an institution that Americans rely on in times of emergency. Actions taken since late summer will leave the country less prepared for the next measles outbreak, foodborne illness, maternal mortality crisis or the emergence of a pandemic. These changes occur quietly, quickly, and almost unmonitored.
When I resigned, I thought bipartisan members of Congress would intervene. Some have raised their concerns privately in briefings with me. But meaningful oversight has been lacking. Congress has tools at its disposal: hearings, subpoenas, appropriations language, whistleblower protections, and statutory safeguards. But unused tools are wasted tools.
After 100 days, we have enough data to know that this is not a series of isolated missteps. This is a deliberate overhaul of the CDC from evidence-based practice to ideology-driven governance. Today I ask the question again: Congress, governors, health systems, scientific societies and the private sector must act. Not with declarations, but with oversight, pressure, and protection for career personnel who continue to serve with integrity. Just as doctors must always do what is right for their patients, I hope that national leaders will do what is right for their constituents and not just what will secure their re-election – and that professional organizations and institutions will speak out on behalf of Americans’ health and not remain silent for fear of losing funding.
I did not resign to make a symbolic point. I resigned because remaining silent would have made me complicit. I spoke up because the stakes for children, communities and our preparedness are too high. What happens next will determine whether the damage becomes permanent.
