Washington’s health agencies are a battleground where Trump’s “Make America Healthy Again” warriors are squaring off against Big Pharma, entrenched bureaucrats, and even some conservative influencers.
According to Just The News, under Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, the CDC, FDA, and NIH are caught in a fierce tug-of-war between deregulation advocates, old-guard staff resisting change, and powerful pharmaceutical interests, with abrupt leadership shakeups and policy clashes defining the chaos.
Let’s start with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, where Susan Monarez was recently sworn in as the first Senate-confirmed director. This came four months after President Trump pulled the nomination of former GOP Rep. Dave Weldon, who pointed fingers at Big Pharma and GOP Sen. Bill Cassidy for tanking his shot.
Weldon didn’t just withdraw quietly—his exit flashes like a neon sign, exposing the pharmaceutical giants’ grip on these halls. Some speculate he might resurface at the FDA in a position that skirts Senate scrutiny, especially since he’s been outspoken about vaccine side effects.
Texas physician Mary Talley Bowden, a medical freedom advocate, supports Weldon. She previously forced the FDA to delete misleading social media posts about ivermectin during the height of the COVID-19 debates. Her endorsement only intensifies the firestorm around those who question the agency’s reach.
Meanwhile, Stuart Burns—Weldon’s former legislative director and now senior advisor—leads sweeping reforms at the CDC. He’s spearheading a full overhaul of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices after Kennedy fired the entire group. While MSNBC sounds the alarm over Burns’ influence, isn’t it time someone brought fresh air into these musty corridors?
Over at the FDA, George Tidmarsh stepped into the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research director role, only to take on acting director duties for Biologics Evaluation and Research just 10 days later. This followed the sudden exit of Vinay Prasad, who faced a barrage of criticism from conservative influencer Laura Loomer and pharmaceutical boosters.
Loomer branded Prasad a “leftist saboteur,” while The Wall Street Journal dubbed him a “Bernie Sanders acolyte.” Though—are we judging policy on merits, or just hurling labels to score points?
Prasad’s departure coincided with the FDA reversing a pause on Sarepta’s Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy drug after three patient deaths raised alarms. A senior health official told The Free Press it was “Big Pharma that got him canned” for “protecting kids,” though Loomer’s attacks played a role—sounds like a convenient scapegoat for deeper systemic issues.
At the National Institutes of Health, Director Jay Bhattacharya is wrestling with a near-mutiny from nearly 500 staff over rumored reduction-in-force plans and a supposed “list of banned words” tied to diversity, equity, and inclusion grants. Bhattacharya told Just the News, “This one is frustrating,” denying any such list in a July 21 meeting with the “Bethesda Declaration” group.
“I ordered there be no banned list,” Bhattacharya insisted to his staff, aiming to clear the air. Yet, federal judges have blocked NIH cuts to DEI grants, with the administration now seeking Supreme Court relief—another sign of the progressive agenda clinging to power.
Tidmarsh, a former Stanford colleague of Bhattacharya, isn’t shy about criticism either, having called out Prasad’s predecessor for overruling FDA scientists on Sarepta’s drug approvals. FDA Commissioner Marty Makary, who initially approved the Sarepta pause with Prasad, still praised Tidmarsh’s “impeccable credentials” to CNBC, signaling confidence amid the storm.
Makary also called Prasad a “genius” despite his exit, while acknowledging Tidmarsh’s deep experience as a drug developer who “knows the FDA from both sides.” It’s a rare moment of unity in a saga of discord—perhaps a hint that competence can still cut through ideology.
Yet, The Wall Street Journal worries Tidmarsh might echo Prasad’s approach, while others speculate about Weldon’s potential FDA return. This isn’t just personnel drama; it’s a test of whether Trump’s vision for health policy can outmuscle entrenched interests without losing sight of public safety.
