President Donald Trump’s nominee to head the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), former Republican Congressman Dr. Dave Weldon, was set to face questioning by Senators on March 13. But on the morning of the hearing, the White House withdrew Weldon’s nomination, according to Axios, which first reported the news. Weldon was due to appear before the U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor & Pensions, and members were expected to question him on topics including his past statements expressing vaccine skepticism. In an interview, Weldon told the New York Times that he just learned about the withdrawal of his nomination the night before; a White House official told him he didn’t have the votes to be confirmed for the role. “It is a shock, but, you know, in some ways, it’s relief,” he told the Times. “Government jobs demand a lot of you, and if God doesn’t want me in it, I’m fine with that.” Here’s what to know about Weldon. Dave Weldon is a physician, veteran, and former Congressman Weldon, 71, served in the Army, and currently operates a private medical practice in Florida. From 1995 to 2009, he served in Congress, representing Florida. Since then, he’s largely been out of the political spotlight, though he’s run campaigns—he lost the GOP Primary for a seat in the U.S. Senate in 2012, as well as the GOP Primary for a seat in the Florida House of Representatives in 2024. He was the president of the Alliance of Health Care Sharing Ministries From 2017 to 2020, Weldon was the president of the Alliance of Health Care Sharing Ministries, an association of faith-based organizations that claim to offer alternatives to health insurance. The organizations have sparked controversy and criticism from state regulators, who have expressed concern that the groups’ marketing strategies have led to confusion among consumers over whether the ministries would fund medical claims. He has repeated the debunked claim that there’s a link between vaccines and autism In the past, Weldon shared similar views on vaccination to Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS). Despite years of research proving the safety and efficacy of vaccines, Weldon has previously repeated the debunked claim that some children could develop autism if they receive the measles vaccine. Dr. Peter Hotez—professor of pediatrics and molecular virology at Baylor College of Medicine and co-director of the Texas Children’s Hospital Center for Vaccine Development—has never worked with Weldon, but says the false claim that vaccines can cause autism “makes no sense.” “We have overwhelming evidence that vaccines don’t cause autism,” Hotez says. “Anyone who wants to reopen spurious autism and vaccine links, you have to believe either they’re misinformed or they have an agenda outside of public health.” Hotez says that many of Weldon’s comments were made years ago, and he hopes that Weldon has since learned more about the topic and changed his views. In November, when the Times spoke to Weldon, they asked him about his past comments, but Weldon declined to state whether he still believed that there is a link between vaccines and autism. He told the Times that his two adult children have been vaccinated, and that he gives vaccines, including the flu shot, to his adult patients. “I’ve been described as anti-vaccine,” he told the Times, adding, “I give shots. I believe in vaccination.” While serving in Congress, Weldon sponsored a bill that passed with bipartisan support in 2003. The bill launched a program, known as the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), that allocated $15 billion for HIV, tuberculosis, and malaria prevention and treatment programs in low-income countries. In the more than two decades since, PEPFAR has saved up to 25 million lives, officials estimate. Hotez says “there’s clearly a disconnect” between Weldon’s support for PEPFAR and his previous anti-vaccine statements. ”But again, those [anti-vaccine theories] were statements he made almost 20 years ago, so what we need to find out is, where does he stand today and what are his views? So the [nomination hearing] will be very instructive in finding that out,” Hotez said (before the hearing was canceled). He has criticized federal health agencies Like some of Trump’s other nominees to lead the nation’s health agencies, such as Dr. Marty Makary, who has been nominated to lead the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Weldon has been a vocal critic of health agencies in the past. In April 2007, he said that federal agencies “failed to free themselves from conflicts of interest that serve to undermine public confidence in the safety of vaccines.” He accused the federal government at the time of dedicating “far more resources to promoting the immunizations than in safety evaluations,” and claimed that the CDC focused its vaccine safety resources on considering short-term side effects, and not enough focus was given to long-term side effects. He also proposed that the vaccine safety office be moved out of the CDC and operate instead as a separate office within HHS. He introduced the "Weldon Amendment" Weldon authored and introduced the Weldon Amendment, which passed in 2005 and prohibits health agencies from discriminating against health care institutions, medical providers, and insurance plans that don’t provide or fund abortion care, typically on religious grounds. Nourbese Flint, president of the reproductive rights group All* Above All, says the amendment “has been incredibly harmful to abortion access.” “This is particularly important in places where people don’t have a lot of providers to turn to,” Flint says. “Particularly for those in rural spaces where there are no other providers, people are stuck.” lint points out that Project 2025 encouraged the next presidential Administration to conduct “abortion surveillance” through the CDC, which is the agency tasked with collecting health data across the country. Project 2025 calls for HHS to ensure that “every state reports exactly how many abortions take place within its borders, at what gestational age of the child, for what reason, the mother’s state of residence, and by what method.” Before the White House pulled Weldon’s nomination, Flint and other reproductive rights advocates had expressed concerns that Weldon could follow through on that Project 2025 suggestion, and that the data collected could be used to identify and penalize providers or even patients. Weldon has also shared unreliable claims about reproductive health. In 1998, he suggested that there was a connection between abortion and breast cancer; the American Cancer Society maintains that “the best scientific evidence does not support a link between abortion and breast cancer risk.” In 2002, Weldon suggested that federal programs focus on abstinence education, rather than teaching adolescents about contraceptives, to prevent sexually transmitted infections (STIs)—research has found that abstinence-only education programs are ineffective. “We’ve seen time and time again that Weldon has used bad science,” Flint says. “Anybody who is worth their weight in salt has known that abstinence is not an effective policy against both STI and unplanned, untimed pregnancies, and that we have a lot of data and research on our side that having a robust sexual education and access to reproductive health care and destigmatizing has been the best ways in which we can reduce STIs and unplanned pregnancies.” Flint calls Weldon “dangerous” for America’s public health, pointing to both his past anti-vaccine and anti-abortion comments. Flint says that when people share “bad science,” it can lead to the public being uninformed about important health topics, which can have fatal consequences.
Students at North Carolina’s public universities can no longer be required to take classes related to diversity, equity and inclusion to graduate. The University of Akron, citing changing state and federal guidance, will no longer host its “Rethinking Race” forum that it had held annually for more than two decades. The University of Colorado took down its main D.E.I. webpage, and posted a new page for an Office of Collaboration. Around the country, dozens of universities and colleges have begun to scrub websites and change programming in response to President Trump’s widening crusade against diversity and inclusion. But much remains unclear about the legality and reach of President Trump’s new orders. So some schools are simply watching and waiting. “It’s meant to create chaos in higher education, and in that it’s been successful,” said Todd Wolfson, the president of the American Association of University Professors, of the attempts by President Trump to end D.E.I. activity on campuses. “The responses are all over the map.” The president has signed several executive orders seeking to ban diversity practices across the federal government, educational institutions and private companies. The orders are sweeping in their language and scope. One demands that agencies and schools terminate D.E.I. offices, positions, action plans, grants and contracts. Another bans “gender ideology and discriminatory equity ideology” and threatens to withhold federal funding from schools that do not promote “patriotic” education. Already, some orders have been challenged in court, and it remains to be seen how broadly the government will pursue institutions that it believes are using “illegal” preferences that “discriminate, exclude, or divide individuals based on race or sex.” An education secretary has not yet been confirmed; Linda McMahon, the nominee, will appear before a Senate committee on Thursday. Administrators of K-12 institutions — which are more financially insulated — are making their own calculations. But in higher education, hundreds of millions in funding are on the line. University administrators are debating whether to freeze existing programs, stand on principle and resist, or try to fly below the radar while they see if the executive orders hold up in the courts.At Princeton, for example, the president, Christopher Eisgruber, urged the community to “Keep Calm and Carry On,” until the legal status of the executive orders becomes more clear.Meanwhile its athletics department posted a modified transgender athlete participation policy to comply with new N.C.A.A. rules, which changed because of President Trump’s order barring transgender athletes from women’s sports. Harvard and the University of Pennsylvania also removed references to transgender inclusion from their athletics websites. At the University of Akron, administrators said that declining attendance and enthusiasm were additional reasons the school had stopped funding its Rethinking Race forum, which has been held every year since 1997. But programs for Black history month would continue, they said. The American Association of University Professors is one of several organizations that has sued in federal court in an effort to block two executive orders related to diversity and inclusion. Advertisement SKIP ADVERTISEMENT The lawsuit charges that the executive orders violate the due process clause of the Constitution by failing to define terms like “D.E.I.,” “equity” and “illegal D.E.I.A.” The orders, it argues, also violate free speech and the separation of powers protections. Still, the ambiguity in what diversity, equity and inclusion means has led some colleges to take a broad view as they seek to comply. The University of North Carolina’s campus in Asheville, for example, had designated certain courses as “diversity intensive,” which meant they could be used to meet a diversity graduation requirement. On the list of classes that met the requirement were Appalachian Literature, Global Business, Developmental Psychology and Cultural Anthropology. They will still be offered, but will no longer be part of a requirement, said Brian Hart, a spokesman for the university. Andy Wallace, a spokesman for the North Carolina system, said the system was assessing federal policy changes to ensure it would still receive funding. “This does not affect any course content,” he said. “It suspends any requirements for D.E.I.-focused courses as a condition of graduation.” Beth Moracco, chair of the faculty at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, said the university’s actions were worrisome. “My concern is that these types of directives and memos will have a chilling effect in terms of discussions in the classroom and faculty developing new courses,” she said, “even if there’s not a direct effect of eliminating courses at this time.” At Michigan State, administrators canceled a Lunar New Year lunch, and then apologized for the overreaction and rescheduled it, according to emails from the school posted online by Bridge Michigan, a nonprofit news source. A university spokeswoman said that its College of Communication Arts and Sciences canceled the event without consulting the broader university; about 70 people showed up for the rescheduled event on Tuesday. Mr. Trump’s orders follow a yearslong push by state level Republicans to roll back diversity programs. Twelve states, including Texas and Florida, have passed laws targeting D.E.I., and legislation has been considered or introduced in more than a dozen other states. More than 240 colleges in 36 states have eliminated some aspects of their programming, including diversity offices or race-based affinity groups, according to the Chronicle of Higher Education, which has been tracking changes in diversity policies since January 2023. Most of those moves happened before Mr. Trump’s recent order, however, and it remains unclear how the flurry of action during his first weeks in office will affect schools over the long term, especially in K-12 districts. So far, few public schools seem to be rushing to change their practices. School districts are less reliant on federal funds than universities are, with 90 percent of their funding coming from state and local taxes. And the nation’s 13,000 districts have always had broad autonomy to set their own curriculum and teaching policies. The Trump administration has launched investigations into at least two K-12 districts — Denver Public Schools and the Ithaca City School District in New York. Denver is under investigation for transforming one girl’s bathroom at a high school into a nonbinary bathroom, according to the Education Department. Ithaca is under investigation for hosting a series of conferences for students of color, some of which may not have been open for white students to attend, according to the Equal Protection Project, an advocacy group that filed a federal civil rights complaint against the school system. Yet Denver is still directing educators to a detailed “L.G.B.T.Q.+ Tool Kit” that lays out policies for affirming students who are questioning their gender identities, giving those students access to the bathrooms of their choice and helping them change their names in the district’s computer systems. And in Ithaca, despite scrutiny on the district’s practices around race, the school system’s website continues to feature a page touting an “anti-marginalization” curriculum. It is intended to aid students “in their development of anti-racist understandings and practices” — language that could run afoul of the president’s executive orders. Ithaca City Schools did not respond to interview requests. In a written statement, a spokesman for Denver’s public schools said that before making any “final decisions” about policy changes, the district was awaiting further federal guidance. He added that the district “remains committed to our values including providing a safe and inclusive learning environment to all students.” Some Democratic education leaders have bluntly stated that they did not intend to change their practices in response to Mr. Trump. When it comes to issues of gender and sexual orientation, “California law is unaffected by recent changes to federal policy,” said Tony Thurmond, the state schools superintendent. In New York, the state education department released a statement calling Mr. Trump’s actions “ineffective” and “antithetical” to the history of federal education policy, which has traditionally sought to protect racial minorities, sexual minorities, students with disabilities and other groups. “We denounce the intolerant rhetoric of these orders,” the state agency said. “Our children cannot thrive in an environment of chaos; they need steady and stable leadership that we will endeavor to provide.” Perhaps the biggest impact in education has occurred in the schools that the federal government controls more directly: those for children who live on military bases and the military’s officer academies. The defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, has declared that official celebrations of events like Black History Month are no longer welcome. The defense department’s K-12 schools have ended some clubs, options for children to use the bathrooms that align with their gender identities and are combing shelves for books with themes related to diversity, according to reporting by Stars and Stripes. The United States Military Academy at West Point disbanded 12 student affinity groups while investigating whether they complied with the administration’s D.E.I. directives. Paulette Granberry Russell, president and chief executive of the National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education, which is also suing the Trump administration to overturn the D.E.I. orders, said the new policies would most likely have a broad chilling effect, despite their ambiguity. “And that chilling effect is, I think, extending whether you are in a red state, a blue state, in anything in between,” she said. “No institution wants to become a target.”
With much of the U.S. blanked in snow this week, many might be wondering what our warming climate means for the future of our winters. The impacts of climate change might be far more noticeable during the summer—in 2024 the U.S. had its fourth hottest summer on record. But rising global temperatures are changing winters too. And people are noticing; 66% of Americans think global warming is affecting weather in the United States, according to a fall 2024 survey released this month by the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication. “The existence of winter doesn't disprove climate change,” says Stuart Evans, assistant professor of geography at the University of Buffalo. “Climate change is a long term trend that makes winter warmer, but it's not erasing the occurrence of winter.” Here’s how winters are impacted by climate change: How will snow storms be impacted by climate change?? Most of the U.S. can expect to see more winter precipitation due to climate change, whether that be rain or snow, says Evans. “A warmer atmosphere will carry more moisture,” he explains. This means that more of that moisture will be released as precipitation. A slightly warmer but still below freezing temperature can also produce more snow than during extreme cold, so some areas might see more snow as temperatures rise. Some places will also see unique changes. For example, storm systems are shifting to different regions, says Chris Forest, professor of climate dynamics at Penn State University. “We're seeing a lot more developments that are not occurring to our west, but they're occurring to the Northwest,” he adds. As a result, he says, the rain that would previously drop over the west is now falling as snow over the Great Plains. In some places—like Michigan or New York—“lake effect snow” might also become more common. The phenomenon occurs when warmer temperatures prevent the lakes from freezing over, causing the warmer water to evaporate into passing cold fronts and fall down as snow. What parts of the country will be most affected? Most of the country will be affected—in fact, many people already are. In the U.S., 283 million people—about 85% of the population—experienced at least one winter day with warm average temperatures last winter, according to Climate Central’s 2024 Climate Shift Index. The impact will look differently depending on where in the country you are. The west coast is seeing warmer, drier winters than 20 years ago, while the Mid-West has fewer days below freezing, says Forest. “Twenty or 30 years ago, we wouldn't have had as many of these contrasts of the warm West with the cold East,” says Forest. One fall 2024 study in the journal npj Climate and Atmospheric Science found that overall winter precipitation and extreme weather events will increase across most of the country. The Northeast and Midwest are expected to see the greatest change, while the southern Great Plains—including Texas and Oklahoma—will see more frequent extreme dry events instead. Will winters get shorter with climate change? Yes. “Winters will get shorter everywhere, simply because there will be fewer days below freezing, or fewer days of frost, or whatever the metric of winter that you want to use,” says Evans, who notes that, though some places will warm faster than others, within the U.S. those differences will be modest. For some, this might be a welcome change. “If you think that winter is cold and unpleasant and you like it when it's warm, well then winter’s gonna get better,” says Evans. But for others dependent on snow or cold temperatures—whether for sports or agriculture—this change likely isn’t good news. What are the consequences of warmer winters? Warmer, shorter winters will have a noticeable impact. A shorter winter could have big impacts on U.S. agriculture produced in the Midwest. “Snowfall is probably the most important thing, because it's supplying water for the Great Plains during the winter time,” says Forest. “Midwestern states are primarily agriculture, and therefore the water that's coming in is a necessary necessity to have in order to make sure that our crops are growing.” Milder winters can also put crops at greater risk for pests and diseases that thrive at warmer temperatures. Stone fruits, walnuts, and almonds produced in California’s Central Valley are already at risk. Plants and animals that have evolved to acclimatize to intense, cold periods might find it challenging to adapt. Polar bears might lose their habitats as snow melts earlier, while insects and animals might lay eggs earlier as they take seasonal cues from the warmer weather. Meanwhile, infrastructure might not be prepared for heavy snowstorms—especially as storms spread to places that might not be accustomed to snow—as we saw earlier this year, when a snowstorm shut down the roads, highways, and bridges in Florida, as most cities lacked snowplows to remove the snow. “We need to be ready,” says Forest.
Dr. Frank Frizelle has operated on countless patients in his career as a colorectal surgeon. But there’s one case that stayed with him. In 2014, he was treating a woman in her late 20s suffering from bowel cancer—already a rare situation, given her age. But it became even more unusual when her best friend visited her in the hospital and told Frizelle that she had many of the same symptoms as his patient. Subsequent testing revealed that his patient’s friend had a lesion that, had it not been caught early, likely would have become cancerous. “That really brought it home to me—how it’s much more common than you think,” says Frizelle, a professor of surgery at the University of Otago in New Zealand. Still, like any good scientist, Frizelle was skeptical. Was it simply a fluke that he kept treating strikingly young patients? Or was his practice one tiny data point in a larger trend? He found his answer after sifting through national health data: colorectal cancer, he discovered, was indeed being diagnosed more often than in previous years among New Zealanders under 50. Further research by Frizelle analyzing populations in Sweden and Scotland showed the same thing. A bigger picture was emerging. Here were three different countries, with different populations and health challenges—but united by a spike in colorectal cancers among young adults.
The first time you tell someone you love them, they might go weak in the knees. The millionth time? It’s probably still nice to hear—but also a bit, well, familiar. “Words do matter,” says Lauren Farina, a psychotherapist in Chicago. “If we’re only using the same words over and over again—as meaningful as the phrase ‘I love you’ can be—it does begin to feel overdone, and therefore loses some of its meaning.” After a while, you might not even consciously think about what you’re saying. That three-word phrase—once so weighty—becomes a default expression of affection, the words rolling off your tongue automatically when you walk out the door or hang up the phone. Switching up what you say to someone you care about can indicate that you’re putting a heightened level of thought and intention into nurturing the relationship, Farina says. We asked experts to share their favorite alternate ways to let a romantic partner, friend, or family member know you care about them, rather than those three little words. “You hold a place in my heart that no one else can touch.” You might think you’re already communicating this to your loved ones via your actions. Yet making it a point to remind them how much they matter to you can strengthen your bond, says Sejginha Williams-Abaku, a marriage and family therapist who’s trained in the Gottman Method, a couple’s therapy technique that emphasizes healthy communication. “It shows them how unique and special and important they are to us,” she says, especially if you say it at a moment when you feel highly emotionally connected. That way it comes off as “authentic and real, and they can feel how much you mean it.” “I trust you and respect you.” Trust and respect are the cornerstones of a loving relationship. When you tell someone you trust them, you’re essentially saying that you know they’ll show up for you when you need them. Plus, it’s validating for the person on the receiving end, because “it demonstrates your perception of their character,” says Marisa Cohen, a marriage and family therapist who’s a relationship expert with the dating app Hily. Respect is similarly vital and makes it clear that you value your partner’s feelings and desires as much as your own. By sharing either or both of these sentiments, you’ll cultivate a secure connection and deeper level of emotional intimacy, she adds. “I feel safe with you.” Emotional safety allows you to feel protected and loved—and confident that your partner will take care of your heart. Otherwise, you might find you’re constantly on edge, replaying conversations, struggling to let your guard down, or avoiding asking for what you need because you’re afraid of being rejected. That’s why conveying a sense of safety is so powerful. “It’s a big one,” Cohen says. You’re letting your partner know that “in times of distress, they’re like a safe port—someone you can find security from.” “You matter to me.” Sometimes, people need to hear how much they mean to you in a straightforward way. “You matter to me” lets them know their presence in your life is important without over-complicating the message, says Melissa Legere, a licensed marriage and family therapist who’s the clinical director and co-founder of California Behavioral Health in Palm Springs. “It can be especially comforting during tough times, or when someone feels overlooked,” she adds. You might say it during a quiet one-on-one conversation, or in a heartfelt text. “Keep it simple and genuine,” Legere advises. “Your tone will do the rest.” Read More: 13 Things to Say When Someone Asks Why You Haven’t Had a Baby Yet “You are my home.” If you say this to a loved one, you’ll communicate a deep sense of comfort and belonging. “It tells the person they’re more than just someone you care about—they’re your safe space and the person you turn to when you need grounding,” Legere says. “It’s a beautiful way to express that they bring a sense of stability and warmth into your life.” Use it during an emotional moment, or when you want to remind them how much they mean to you; it could be whispered during a hug, written in a card, or even shared casually in a quiet moment together, she adds. “You add so much value and joy to my life.” If you haven’t told a friend what they mean to you lately, seize the moment. “A lot of friendships are born out of fun,” Williams-Abaku points out. “Knowing that a friendship is more than just fun, and that we’re adding value to the life of a friend, can make us feel really good." You might also add: “I'm so grateful for all the ways you've shown up for me,” she suggests, which reinforces your connection. “You have my heart.” Telling someone they have your heart conveys trust, devotion, and deep affection. “It’s intimate and special—showing that you’ve chosen to give them a piece of yourself,” Legere says. “It works well when you’re being vulnerable and want your partner to know they hold a unique, irreplaceable place in your life.” “I heard a song that reminded me of you.” Sharing a specific way you’re reminded of someone you care about—like a song you heard on the radio, a poem you read, or a beautiful patch of flowers you saw on your walk to work—can make them feel special and valued. Plus, it lets them know you’re thinking of them, even when you’re not together. “It’s a great opportunity to strengthen your connection," says April Davis, founder and president of LUMA Luxury Matchmaking. Just make sure there’s a clear positive association—you probably don’t want to tell your boyfriend that Taylor Swift's The Smallest Man Who Ever Lived reminded you of him. Read More: Love Languages Actually Do Improve Your Relationship “I love being your [husband, wife, partner, parent, friend] because _____.” Specificity is key when you’re expressing affection—so make it a point to regularly tell your loved ones your favorite thing(s) about them, like their creativity, sense of humor, or loyalty. Zeroing in on a particular quality or tendency indicates you’re paying attention; plus, it helps ensure your compliment feels sincere. “My personal philosophy is that what each of us seeks in a relationship is really being seen and known for who we are as individuals,” Farina says, “and this statement really drives that.”
The Senate confirmed Robert F. Kennedy Jr., one of America’s most notorious vaccine skeptics, to run the country’s leading health agency, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), on Thursday, sparking outrage among public health experts who worry that Kennedy will harm public health and further erode trust in science and medicine. “I think it’s a sad day for America’s children. I think it’s a sad day for public health when someone who is a science denialist, conspiracy theorist, and virulent anti-vaccine activist is [leading] the biggest public health agency in the United States,” says Dr. Paul Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, who has served on vaccine advisory committees for the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). “I think every Senator who voted for his confirmation should be ashamed of themselves for their unwillingness to stand up for the health of the American public.” Kennedy, 71, was one of President Donald Trump’s most controversial Cabinet nominees. For years, Kennedy has spread medical disinformation, enraging experts in the field. He’s repeated the debunked claim that vaccines cause autism—even though research overwhelmingly proves that vaccines are both safe and effective—and has made controversial statements about raw milk and fluoride in water. During his confirmation hearings, he faced heated questioning by Senators over his anti-vaccine views, flip-flopping stance on abortion, and previous support for some conspiracy theories, such as his assertions that Lyme Disease and COVID-19 were engineered bioweapons. He appeared unfamiliar with certain issues he would oversee as the head of HHS, at times seemingly confusing Medicaid and Medicare. All the same, Kennedy was confirmed by a vote of 52 to 48, with Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky—a polio survivor—the only Republican who voted against his confirmation. Read More: RFK Jr. Outlines His Health Secretary Priorities in Post-Confirmation Interview With Fox News Public health experts first sounded the alarm when Trump announced Kennedy as his nominee to lead HHS back in November. As head of HHS, Kennedy will oversee health agencies like the CDC and the FDA. At the forefront of experts’ concern is the influence Kennedy would have over vaccines. Kennedy tried to distance himself from his previous anti-vaccine statements during his confirmation hearings, saying that he’s not “anti-vaccine” but “pro-safety,” and he has said that he and the Trump Administration wouldn’t take vaccines off the market. But experts cast doubt on whether the Administration would hold true to that statement, and many worry that Kennedy could appoint people to agencies like the FDA and CDC who could impede or revoke vaccine approvals, not only limiting access to but also sowing distrust in a powerful public health tool. Dr. Rob Davidson is an emergency physician in Michigan and executive director of the Committee to Protect Health Care, which had circulated a petition garnering more than 22,000 signatures from physicians calling on the Senate to reject Kennedy. Davidson says he worries about how Kennedy will respond to emerging diseases, such as H5N1, more commonly known as bird flu. In addition to his anti-vaccine rhetoric, Kennedy has previously suggested putting a pause on infectious disease research, sparking backlash from many public health experts. “He’s just a dangerous individual when it comes to public health,” Davidson says. “It’s dangerous to have a guy who’s led [the vaccine skepticism] movement being the head of this agency, the mouthpiece of the U.S. government when it comes to public health. So that is truly terrifying.” “I think a lot of lives are at risk potentially because of this person running this agency,” Davidson continues. Read More: RFK Jr. Denied He Is Anti-Vaccine During His Confirmation Hearing. Here’s His Record Experts are also concerned about the actions Kennedy could take on abortion. Kennedy, who had previously expressed support for people’s right to choose, has since shared anti-abortion statements, saying during his confirmation hearings that he agrees with Trump “that every abortion is a tragedy” and abortion policy should be left up to individual states. During the hearings, Kennedy was asked about the abortion medication mifepristone, which was approved by the FDA for abortion purposes more than twenty years ago but has recently been unsuccessfully challenged in court by a group of anti-abortion doctors and organizations. Kennedy gave vague answers when asked about the drug, saying that Trump asked him “to study the safety of mifepristone” and that the President “has not yet taken a stand on how to regulate it.” Davidson worries that, under Kennedy’s leadership, HHS and the FDA could make mifepristone less available or accessible. Read More: The Powers Trump’s Nominees Will Have Over Abortion The one area in which Kennedy has garnered some favor among health experts is his stance on food and nutrition. Kennedy has shared a plan to “Make America Healthy Again,” in which he vows to “ban the hundreds of food additives and chemicals that other countries have already prohibited” and “change regulations, research topics, and subsidies to reduce the dominance of ultra-processed food.” Dr. Dariush Mozaffarian, a cardiologist and director of the Food Is Medicine Institute at Tufts University, says he thinks Kennedy and the Trump Administration “have a chance to really coalesce around the top crisis facing our country, which is food-related chronic conditions.” While he hopes that Kennedy will focus on addressing this issue and turn away from his more controversial statements on vaccines, Mozaffarian says he was disappointed by Kennedy’s responses to questions over his anti-vaccine rhetoric during his confirmation hearings. “I think he had a chance there to put that controversy to rest and show he’s going to really focus on where the consensus is, which is that our food system is broken,” Mozaffarian says. Many health experts are skeptical that Kennedy will actually take meaningful steps on food and nutrition. “It is absolutely eclipsed by his other controversial views,” Davidson says of Kennedy’s stance on food. “The danger of him is so much greater than any potential benefit of those views.” Experts worry that Kennedy could exacerbate public distrust in science and medicine, and many say that his confirmation and the support he’s received is already a concerning sign of that. “I think today really is a marker in the road, marking growing mistrust in institutions, marking power of changing information landscape, but most prominently, the marker that the lines between truth and falsehoods are blurred and how we navigate this new world is going to require a different approach,” says Katelyn Jetelina, an epidemiologist and founder of the newsletter Your Local Epidemiologist. “What I’m most concerned about is the rhetoric and the sowing of doubt and the confusion … that we’re all going to be facing.”
The Senate confirmed Robert F. Kennedy Jr., one of America’s most notorious vaccine skeptics, to run the country’s leading health agency, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), on Thursday, sparking outrage among public health experts who worry that Kennedy will harm public health and further erode trust in science and medicine. “I think it’s a sad day for America’s children. I think it’s a sad day for public health when someone who is a science denialist, conspiracy theorist, and virulent anti-vaccine activist is [leading] the biggest public health agency in the United States,” says Dr. Paul Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, who has served on vaccine advisory committees for the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). “I think every Senator who voted for his confirmation should be ashamed of themselves for their unwillingness to stand up for the health of the American public.” Kennedy, 71, was one of President Donald Trump’s most controversial Cabinet nominees. For years, Kennedy has spread medical disinformation, enraging experts in the field. He’s repeated the debunked claim that vaccines cause autism—even though research overwhelmingly proves that vaccines are both safe and effective—and has made controversial statements about raw milk and fluoride in water. During his confirmation hearings, he faced heated questioning by Senators over his anti-vaccine views, flip-flopping stance on abortion, and previous support for some conspiracy theories, such as his assertions that Lyme Disease and COVID-19 were engineered bioweapons. He appeared unfamiliar with certain issues he would oversee as the head of HHS, at times seemingly confusing Medicaid and Medicare. All the same, Kennedy was confirmed by a vote of 52 to 48, with Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky—a polio survivor—the only Republican who voted against his confirmation. Read More: RFK Jr. Outlines His Health Secretary Priorities in Post-Confirmation Interview With Fox News Public health experts first sounded the alarm when Trump announced Kennedy as his nominee to lead HHS back in November. As head of HHS, Kennedy will oversee health agencies like the CDC and the FDA. At the forefront of experts’ concern is the influence Kennedy would have over vaccines. Kennedy tried to distance himself from his previous anti-vaccine statements during his confirmation hearings, saying that he’s not “anti-vaccine” but “pro-safety,” and he has said that he and the Trump Administration wouldn’t take vaccines off the market. But experts cast doubt on whether the Administration would hold true to that statement, and many worry that Kennedy could appoint people to agencies like the FDA and CDC who could impede or revoke vaccine approvals, not only limiting access to but also sowing distrust in a powerful public health tool. Dr. Rob Davidson is an emergency physician in Michigan and executive director of the Committee to Protect Health Care, which had circulated a petition garnering more than 22,000 signatures from physicians calling on the Senate to reject Kennedy. Davidson says he worries about how Kennedy will respond to emerging diseases, such as H5N1, more commonly known as bird flu. In addition to his anti-vaccine rhetoric, Kennedy has previously suggested putting a pause on infectious disease research, sparking backlash from many public health experts. “He’s just a dangerous individual when it comes to public health,” Davidson says. “It’s dangerous to have a guy who’s led [the vaccine skepticism] movement being the head of this agency, the mouthpiece of the U.S. government when it comes to public health. So that is truly terrifying.” “I think a lot of lives are at risk potentially because of this person running this agency,” Davidson continues. Read More: RFK Jr. Denied He Is Anti-Vaccine During His Confirmation Hearing. Here’s His Record Experts are also concerned about the actions Kennedy could take on abortion. Kennedy, who had previously expressed support for people’s right to choose, has since shared anti-abortion statements, saying during his confirmation hearings that he agrees with Trump “that every abortion is a tragedy” and abortion policy should be left up to individual states. During the hearings, Kennedy was asked about the abortion medication mifepristone, which was approved by the FDA for abortion purposes more than twenty years ago but has recently been unsuccessfully challenged in court by a group of anti-abortion doctors and organizations. Kennedy gave vague answers when asked about the drug, saying that Trump asked him “to study the safety of mifepristone” and that the President “has not yet taken a stand on how to regulate it.” Davidson worries that, under Kennedy’s leadership, HHS and the FDA could make mifepristone less available or accessible. Read More: The Powers Trump’s Nominees Will Have Over Abortion The one area in which Kennedy has garnered some favor among health experts is his stance on food and nutrition. Kennedy has shared a plan to “Make America Healthy Again,” in which he vows to “ban the hundreds of food additives and chemicals that other countries have already prohibited” and “change regulations, research topics, and subsidies to reduce the dominance of ultra-processed food.” Dr. Dariush Mozaffarian, a cardiologist and director of the Food Is Medicine Institute at Tufts University, says he thinks Kennedy and the Trump Administration “have a chance to really coalesce around the top crisis facing our country, which is food-related chronic conditions.” While he hopes that Kennedy will focus on addressing this issue and turn away from his more controversial statements on vaccines, Mozaffarian says he was disappointed by Kennedy’s responses to questions over his anti-vaccine rhetoric during his confirmation hearings. “I think he had a chance there to put that controversy to rest and show he’s going to really focus on where the consensus is, which is that our food system is broken,” Mozaffarian says. Many health experts are skeptical that Kennedy will actually take meaningful steps on food and nutrition. “It is absolutely eclipsed by his other controversial views,” Davidson says of Kennedy’s stance on food. “The danger of him is so much greater than any potential benefit of those views.” Experts worry that Kennedy could exacerbate public distrust in science and medicine, and many say that his confirmation and the support he’s received is already a concerning sign of that. “I think today really is a marker in the road, marking growing mistrust in institutions, marking power of changing information landscape, but most prominently, the marker that the lines between truth and falsehoods are blurred and how we navigate this new world is going to require a different approach,” says Katelyn Jetelina, an epidemiologist and founder of the newsletter Your Local Epidemiologist. “What I’m most concerned about is the rhetoric and the sowing of doubt and the confusion … that we’re all going to be facing
A powerful tropical cyclone was barreling toward the Pilbara region in northwestern Australia on Friday morning and was expected to bring destructive winds and flooding to a remote region that is home to ports and mines that are crucial to the global economy. It was about 60 miles offshore and was expected to make landfall in the afternoon, the authorities said. Tropical Cyclone Zelia had sustained wind speeds at its center of about 127 miles per hour with wind gusts of up to 177 miles per hour, according to Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology. This would make the storm equivalent to a Category 4 Atlantic hurricane. On Australia’s tropical cyclone scale, it falls within the highest classification level. “It doesn’t get worse than that. That is the most powerful tropical cyclone you can get,” Angus Hines, a senior meteorologist at the bureau, said in a briefing on Thursday. Advertisement SKIP ADVERTISEMENT While the Pilbara region, a desert, is sparsely populated, it is Australia’s mining heartland and home to major iron ore mines operated by Rio Tinto, Fortescue and BHP. A key port in the region has already closed. The storm may bring wind gusts of as much as 180 m.p.h. when it makes landfall, Mr. Hines said. That’s strong enough to destroy houses and “cause widespread damage and destruction,” he said. Zelia is also expected to bring flash flooding and coastal surges to the region, with some parts expected to receive more than 19.7 inches of rain. The storm has forced ports in the region to halt operations. Port Hedland, one of the largest iron ore ports in the world, closed on Wednesday, according to Pilbara Ports. Dampier Port, which is used by Rio Tinto, and the Port of Varanus Island, which is used as a processing hub for oil and other fuel, would close on Thursday afternoon, Pilbara Ports said. Rio Tinto said in a statement on Thursday that it had paused its Dampier Salt operation at Port Hedland and Dampier, and had cleared ships and trains from its ports in the region. The storm is expected to make landfall between the towns of Karratha, home to about 22,000 people, and Port Hedland, which has nearly 16,000 residents. Major roads in the region have been closed since Thursday, as were stores, national parks and a dozen schools.
Suhas Subramanyam is about to wear through his fourth pair of walking shoes. The 38-year-old Democrat wore out the first three knocking on doors to convince voters in the Northern Virginia suburbs to send him to Capitol Hill. He’s only been in Congress a month and his current pair have started to fray as he’s paced the Capitol and his district responding to President Donald Trump’s remaking of Washington and the federal government. Subramanyam has been moving at a frenzied pace ever since being sworn in on Jan. 6, as Trump and Elon Musk have taken steps to dismantle federal agencies, gut the federal workforce, and, some argue, set the stage for a constitutional crisis. “Everything so far is so crazy,” says Subramanyam, in an interview in his basement office in the Longworth House Office Building. “We are just trying to adapt to everything that is going on and go with the punches and figure out what our response is.” In Washington, Subramanyam has been among those Democrats from Congress joining ousted federal workers outside the U.S. Agency for International Development and the Treasury Department to denounce the Musk-led restructuring. In his district, home to 34,000 federal workers, Subramanyam has been struck by the anxiety of so many of his constituents. On a recent Monday night, he expected his first town hall in Leesburg to draw a few dozen people. Instead the place was packed to capacity. Hundreds filled long benches inside the Loudoun County Government Center to express their concerns about federal job cuts and funding freezes. Hundreds more watched the discussion from monitors in the building’s lobby. Several stood up to express their concerns about federal programs and jobs that were being slashed. One man said his agency was told to cut 50% of its jobs and described how an official sent from Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency had started sleeping in the office. Subramanyam, whose committee assignments include the House Oversight Committee, directed his staff to log the testimony and contact details of whistleblowers and collect details to document the Trump administration’s actions. He says his concerns are about more than the federal workers in his district losing their livelihoods. He’s heard from food safety experts, crop security specialists, and nuclear scientists who are seeing their work halted. He fears the loss of expertise in the federal government, as people who have worked in their fields for years or decades get pushed out of public service and end up in the private sector. Subramanyam says he’s already seeing a “brain drain” from the federal government. It’s not a downsizing of government, he says, it’s a “dumbsizing.” “When we talk about Trump getting rid of highly educated employees at federal agencies, that’s not just the income of a working family in our district,” he says. “That is the deterioration of food safety or of security for our country.” This is not Subramanyam’s first time in the federal government. He served as a White House technology policy adviser in the Obama administration. He then spent five years in the Virginia Legislature. On the campaign trail, he often laid out his entire life story, including his parents immigrating to America from India before he was born. Last week, Musk announced his Department of Government Efficiency was rehiring Marko Elez, a 25-year-old software engineer who had resigned after The Wall Street Journal linked him to a social media account that had recently posted racist messages including "Normalize Indian hate," and "You could not pay me to marry outside of my ethnicity." Subramanyam says the incident “shows the values of the people Musk is bringing on.” “I don’t dwell on it but I see it as a responsibility not to normalize it,” he says. “I’m Indian American and in a mixed-race marriage. It’s deeply offensive, but it’s becoming normal for me to hear things like that—especially over the last couple of years.” While he spent much of his first time opposing the GOP’s agenda, Subramanyam found at least one moment of bipartisanship. Last month, he was among the Democrats who joined Republicans to pass the Laken Riley Act, which requires immigration officers to arrest and detain immigrants who are in the country unlawfully if they are charged with any of a list of crimes, including minor theft of $100 or more. It is the first bill Trump has signed into law in his second term.
