Rep. Haley Stevens moves to impeach RFK Jr.
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Rep. Haley Stevens (D‑Mich.) formally filed articles of impeachment on Dec. 10–11, 2025 alleging HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. “weaponiz[es] misinformation,” cut lifesaving research, and violated his oath by undermining public health; Stevens says the effort responds to funding cuts and what she calls an “assault” on science [1] [2] [3]. Democratic leaders did not back the move and House GOP control makes the effort unlikely to succeed; multiple outlets call the measure largely symbolic or futile [4] [3] [5].
1. What Stevens filed and why she says she did it
Rep. Haley Stevens formally introduced articles of impeachment charging HHS Secretary RFK Jr. with abuse of authority, undermining science, and cutting research funding — framing his actions as life‑and‑death errors that “weaponize misinformation” and endanger public health (Stevens’ office statement and press releases described in [1]; [2]; p1_s3). Stevens has previously proposed legislation — the “Stop RFK’s BS Act” — to reverse department funding cuts, and she told reporters she’s following through on an announcement first made in September [6] [7].
2. The complaints in brief: misinformation, funding cuts, and public health harms
Stevens’ articles point to a pattern: officials and reporters quote her accusing Kennedy of spreading conspiracies about vaccines and substances like Tylenol, eroding trust in medicine, and approving or enacting budget and personnel changes that she says gut research and raise costs [2] [3] [1]. Local and national coverage repeats that Stevens contends Kennedy’s policies have driven up health care costs and increased risks such as rising measles cases cited by her [2] [5].
3. Political reality: symbolic move facing long odds
News outlets uniformly note the impeachment resolution lacks support from Democratic leadership and is unlikely to pass or even get a floor hearing in a GOP‑controlled House; Axios and the New York Daily News describe Democrats’ reluctance and call the effort mostly symbolic [4] [3]. NBC and other outlets explicitly state the push “is almost certain to be blocked” [5]. The Stevens campaign context — she’s running in a contested 2026 Michigan Senate primary — is noted across coverage as politically relevant [8] [9].
4. How Democrats are publicly responding
Several prominent House Democrats declined to endorse the move. Reports say Stevens alerted leaders in advance but did not receive leadership backing; some Democrats describe impeachment overreach as performative and warn it distracts from legislative work [4]. Sources quote lawmakers saying impeachment has been used often and hasn’t achieved policy results, framing intra‑party debate between accountability advocates and pragmatists [4] [10].
5. RFK Jr. and the administration’s response (what’s reported)
Packaged press accounts relay an HHS spokesman’s defense that Kennedy is focused on lowering costs and improving health, calling the impeachment push partisan theater; the Daily Caller and others cite an HHS statement along these lines [8]. Available sources do not mention any additional legal or disciplinary processes launched by HHS in response to Stevens’ filing beyond public statements (not found in current reporting).
6. Stakes and competing narratives
Stevens frames the filing as a defense of science and public safety; critics within her party call the tactic politically risky and unlikely to change policy [1] [4]. Conservative outlets and some commentators highlight political motives — noting Stevens’ Senate ambitions — and characterize the move as grandstanding, while outlets close to or quoting Stevens emphasize alleged concrete harms to research and health outcomes [8] [3] [2].
7. What this means going forward
Given GOP control and lack of Democratic leadership support, the impeachment bid will likely remain a public rebuke rather than a successful removal mechanism; news coverage frames it as a tool to spotlight concerns about HHS direction rather than a near‑term constitutional remedy [5] [3]. Whether Stevens’ action shifts public opinion or influences committee activity is not yet reported in the available sources (not found in current reporting).
Limitations: this analysis relies solely on contemporaneous news accounts and Stevens’ office materials provided by sources above; available sources do not include the full text of the articles of impeachment or any committee filings beyond media reporting (not found in current reporting).