Nearly every Democratic member of the Senate Finance Committee has united in a sharp call for Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to resign as secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services. Their demand comes amid growing unrest over his sweeping changes at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
According to The Hill, eleven of the twelve Democratic senators on the committee issued a joint statement on Thursday, just before Kennedy was set to testify on federal vaccine policy shifts and the abrupt departure of top CDC officials. They minced no words, accusing him of endangering public health, especially for children and vulnerable Americans.
“Robert Kennedy was unfit to serve as the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services before he was on the job,” the senators declared in their statement. Let’s unpack that: if he was unfit from the start, as they claim, why are they only now sounding the alarm after seven months of his tenure?
Over the past seven months, Kennedy has moved swiftly to reshape federal health agencies with a series of bold, controversial decisions. His actions include reluctantly endorsing the measles vaccine during a Texas outbreak and slashing over $500 million in mRNA research grants and contracts.
He’s also restricted access to COVID-19 vaccines, replaced members of the CDC’s vaccine advisory panel, and fired former CDC Director Susan Monarez. These moves, while framed by Kennedy as necessary reforms, have ignited a firestorm among critics who see them as a dangerous rejection of established science.
“Robert Kennedy must resign, and if he doesn’t, Trump should fire him before more American families are hurt by his reckless disregard for science and the truth,” the senators insisted. That’s a heavy charge, but one might ask if their outrage is truly about science or more about resisting any challenge to the entrenched health bureaucracy.
The firing of Susan Monarez stands as a flashpoint in this ongoing clash, with Kennedy asserting the leadership change was “absolutely necessary” to restore the CDC to a “gold standard” of protecting Americans. He doubled down, stating, “That’s why we need bold, competent and creative new leadership at CDC.”
Monarez, however, fired back in a Thursday op-ed, labeling Kennedy a long-time vaccine skeptic and claiming her dismissal stemmed from refusing to preapprove recommendations for a newly stacked vaccine advisory panel filled with anti-vaccine voices. Her accusation paints a stark picture, but without concrete evidence, it risks sounding like sour grapes from a sidelined bureaucrat.
Kennedy didn’t hold back either, denying her claims and calling her a liar during a tense exchange with Senate Finance Committee Ranking Member Ron Wyden of Oregon. Such blunt language in a public hearing only fuels the perception of chaos at the top levels of health policy.
The Democratic senators’ statement pulled no punches, accusing Kennedy of “discarding well-established science related to vaccines” and “elevating conspiracy theorists and self-interested charlatans to positions of public trust.” They also pointed to his oversight of what they call the largest cut to American health care in history, a claim that seems designed to shock more than inform.
Only one Democratic member of the committee, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, refrained from signing the joint statement, though he made his stance clear. “He never should have been confirmed,” Whitehouse told The Hill, echoing the broader sentiment of regret among his peers.
That near-unanimous Democratic front sends a loud message, yet it’s worth noting the absence of a White House response to these calls for resignation. Silence from the administration leaves room to wonder if Kennedy still holds the confidence of those who appointed him.
As this drama unfolds, the core issue remains whether Kennedy’s reforms are a reckless gamble or a much-needed shakeup of a system many Americans have lost faith in. His tenure has undeniably sparked debate about the direction of public health policy at a time when trust in institutions is already fragile.
For families watching measles outbreaks or navigating vaccine access, the stakes couldn’t be higher, and the senators’ warning about endangering lives resonates with real fear. Yet, pushing for resignation without offering a clear alternative risks deepening the divide between those who demand reform and those who defend the status quo.
Ultimately, this standoff is less about one man and more about what Americans expect from their health agencies: unwavering science or unflinching accountability. As Kennedy’s testimony and these resignations ripple through Washington, the question lingers whether his vision will rebuild trust or fracture it further.
