Lawmakers on Capitol Hill have intensified scrutiny on Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., following significant political actions aimed at his administration. On December 10, Representative Haley Stevens, a Democrat from Michigan, introduced formal articles of impeachment against Kennedy, characterizing him as a peril to public health. Stevens, who is campaigning for an open Senate seat, asserted that Kennedy has undermined public confidence in health institutions and obstructed significant medical advancements.
In her impeachment measure, Stevens cited Kennedy’s controversial stance on vaccines, particularly his skepticism which has garnered widespread attention since his bid for the presidency. Although the impeachment articles are viewed as unlikely to succeed in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, they reflect the mounting frustration among some lawmakers regarding Kennedy’s policies.
This political maneuver comes in the wake of a contentious decision by a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) advisory panel, which voted to withdraw long-standing recommendations for newborns to receive an immediate first dose of the hepatitis B vaccine. This move has sparked backlash among public health experts, shaping a complex narrative around vaccine hesitancy in the current political climate.
Responding to the impeachment motion, Andrew Nixon, the top spokesperson for HHS, criticized Stevens for attempting to garner political leverage rather than focusing on substantive health issues. He emphasized that Secretary Kennedy is committed to enhancing the health of Americans and reducing healthcare costs, dismissing the impeachment proceedings as mere partisanship aimed at boosting Stevens’ Senate campaign.
Further complicating Kennedy’s position, a coalition of three Republican senators—Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), Susan Collins (Maine), and Thom Tillis (North Carolina)—joined Democrats to endorse a resolution of disapproval against the HHS. This resolution addresses the Biden administration’s recent decision to limit public input regarding the agency’s regulatory actions, particularly following the termination of a policy known as the Richardson Waiver, in place since 1971, which mandated public solicitation for feedback related to federal grants and contracts.
Critics, including some members of Kennedy’s party, argue that this change is primarily designed to minimize opposition to his health policies, while HHS maintains that the adjustments were necessary for improving departmental efficiency. The ongoing debates showcase the deep divisions within Congress and the complex landscape of public health policy in the United States, as Kennedy navigates the challenges of his role amid increasing political pressure.
