What actions as the secretary has rfk jr taken
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Robert F. Kennedy Jr., sworn in as the 26th Secretary of Health and Human Services in February 2025, has used his authority to pursue sweeping policy and organizational changes that reflect his long-standing skepticism of mainstream public health positions and the Trump administration’s “Make America Healthy Again” agenda, while consolidating influence through staffing and funding decisions across HHS agencies [1] [2] [3]. Those actions include issuing executive directives and reorganizations, cutting or redirecting grants, initiating regulatory and staffing shifts at agencies such as NIH and FDA, and provoking legal and political backlash from medical groups and some members of Congress [2] [4] [5] [6].
1. A rapid launch of the “MAHA” agenda and executive moves to reshape HHS
Within weeks of being sworn in, Secretary Kennedy publicly embraced and began implementing the administration’s “Make America Healthy Again” priorities, signing an executive order tied to MAHA and announcing a mandate to realign HHS programs and budgetary priorities to that agenda, positioning himself to reshape NIH, CDC and other divisions under his control [2] [7].
2. Grant cancellations and funding realignments that targeted major medical groups
HHS under Kennedy has terminated multimillion-dollar grants to established medical organizations, most prominently cutting funding to the American Academy of Pediatrics; administration officials told the Washington Post the moves reflected changed departmental priorities and objections to what they called “identity‑based language” in grantee materials, a decision that triggered litigation from medical associations challenging Kennedy’s vaccine changes [4].
3. Institutional restructurings, staffing reductions and pressure on FDA and NIH
Kennedy has pushed broad reorganizations and expressed support for substantial staffing cuts across agencies, including measures to reduce the FDA’s reliance on user fees and proposed changes to NIH funding and staffing that legal challenges have temporarily blocked, signaling a shift in HHS’s approach to research, drug development partnerships and clinical trials [5].
4. A public posture and daily White House contact that politicize agency decision‑making
Profiles of the secretary describe near‑daily calls with the president and close coordination with White House aides, and paint a management style that has centralized decision-making in the secretary’s office while advancing controversial policy positions that many public health experts view as politicizing scientific agencies [3] [7].
5. Legal and political backlash: lawsuits, impeachment calls and professional condemnation
Kennedy’s policy moves have provoked immediate pushback: major medical associations have filed suits challenging HHS vaccine policy changes, advocacy groups such as Doctors for America publicly declared him “unfit” and accused him of advancing misinformation and dismantling services, and at least one House Democrat has introduced articles of impeachment—largely symbolic under the current Republican majority—arguing his actions endanger public health [4] [6] [8].
6. Mixed official presentation and contested reputation inside government
HHS’s own biography of the secretary emphasizes his environmental and children’s health legal career and frames his leadership as aligning expertise with underserved voices, even as outside reporting highlights deep disagreements over his qualifications and approach; his confirmation itself was narrowly won, reflecting that split in Washington [9] [10] [11].
7. What reporting cannot yet confirm about long‑term program effects
Public coverage documents immediate orders, grant cuts, staffing proposals, litigation and political responses, but available reporting does not yet provide definitive, peer‑reviewed evidence on long‑term impacts of Kennedy’s policies on vaccination rates, research output, public health outcomes, or health‑care delivery metrics—those outcomes remain to be measured and reported [5] [4].
8. Two competing narratives: reform versus recklessness
Supporters present Kennedy’s actions as bold reform: reducing perceived conflicts of interest, shifting priorities to underserved communities and retooling agencies for what the administration calls national health sovereignty; critics call the same moves reckless politicization that undermines evidence‑based medicine, weakens disease prevention programs and risks public trust in federal health institutions, a divide reflected in the lawsuits, professional condemnations and heated congressional debate [7] [6] [4].