What Trump’s latest picks mean for the future of U.S. public health policy

Trump has made his picks for key public health roles in his administration, nominating family medicine doctor and Fox News contributor Dr. Janette Nesheiwat to be the next surgeon general, Johns Hopkins surgeon Dr. Marty Makary to lead the FDA, and former Florida congressman Dr. Dave Weldon as director of the CDC. Politico reporter Alice Miranda Ollstein joins Laura Barrón-López to discuss.
Laura Barron-Lopez:
Good evening. I’m Laura Barron-Lopez. John Yang is away. President-elect Donald Trump has named three doctors to key public health roles that oversee the U.S. vaccine supply, disease response and food safety. He’s nominating Dr. Janette Nesheiwat, a family medicine doctor and Fox News contributor, to be the next surgeon general. Trump is also tapping Johns Hopkins surgeon Marty Makary to lead the Food and Drug Administration, and Dr. Dave Weldon, a former congressman from Florida, to be the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
For more on what the picks say about the administration’s approach to public health and science, we turn to Politico reporter Alice Miranda Ollstein. Alice, thanks so much for joining us. The surgeon general is often called the nation doctor, and they have one of the biggest public health pulpits.
I want to read for you a post by Jerome Adams, who served as Donald Trump’s first surgeon general during that first administration. And he posted today that whooping cough cases are up five times this year, measles deaths have gone up globally, and that the new administration had better have a strong infectious disease response plan and had better ensure public health and vaccine confidence stays high or they’ll be distracted with outbreaks for years.
Where does Jeanette Nesheiwat stand when it comes to her history with infectious diseases and the other duties this role carries?
Alice Miranda Ollstein, Politico:
Yeah. So I think that we are seeing the healthcare world express some cautious optimism about her nomination compared with some of the other health officials that have been nominated recently by Donald Trump. She has expressed support for vaccines, unlike some of these other folks, but she has been critical of some vaccine mandates, and so that could have endeared her to the Trump and Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. wing right here.
Also, in that quote from Jerome Adams, you really see this tension because both Trump and Kennedy have expressed interest in moving away from focusing on infectious diseases and focusing more on chronic diseases. Of course, there’s a lot of overlap. Infectious diseases can cause chronic diseases.
And there’s just a lot of alarm given the public health threats we see right now, not only whooping cough, which you mentioned, and measles, but also we’re seeing outbreaks of bird flu. And so there is a concern that these officials with the priorities they have voiced in the past and since being nominated will sort of take the foot off the gas of both research and, you know, promotion of measures that could halt the spread of infectious diseases.
Laura Barron-Lopez:
Let’s talk about some of those other officials. So to lead the Food and Drug Administration, Donald Trump nominated Marty Makary. He’s a surgical oncologist with Johns Hopkins University. What do we know about him and how he might approach that job?
Alice Miranda Ollstein:
Right. So he was sort of seen as a more establishment friendly pick, less out of the blue. We’ve been reporting that he was under consideration for a while now.
But I think same as the surgeon general pick, you’re hearing some cautious optimism from the public health world based on things he said in the past, based on his support, he is self-identified as being pro vaccine. And so there is, you know, sort of hope from the public health community that he will be somewhat of a, you know, counter to the Robert F. Kennedy Jr. vaccine skepticism wing that is emerging in this administration.
But again, everyone serves at the pleasure of the president. And so it’ll really be what the tone is coming from the top that will dictate a lot of things going forward.
Laura Barron-Lopez:
Then there’s Dave Weldon, the former Republican congressman. He’s staunchly anti-abortion, skeptical of vaccines, has pushed the debunked idea that preservatives and vaccines cause autism. And he’s going to potentially soon be leading the CDC, which is now has to be confirmed by the Senate. Does he fit into a pattern here when it comes to Trump’s picks to shape the country’s health policy and public health?
Alice Miranda Ollstein:
Yeah. So I think, you know, even though these folks are ideologically a little bit all over the place, there are some themes that are emerging. And one of themes that is alarming people is that these folks don’t have experience running big bureaucracies, which, of course, there are tens of thousands of employees at these different agencies. And so that’s why in the past, you know, you’ve had governors or people with previous federal government experience doing this. It’s not an easy job.
And so even though you have medical experience or like Weldon, you have served on committees that oversee these agencies, you know, that is important. But they’re alarmed not only by some of the views he has expressed. I mean, he’s not only questioned vaccine safety when it comes to things like COVID, but also, you know, regular childhood vaccines, the MMR vaccines.
He’s questioned the HPV vaccine. And so this is really alarming lawmakers and people in the public health world, in addition to this sort of lack of executive experience.
Laura Barron-Lopez:
Speaking of MMR disease, all three of these nominees will be big figures informing Americans about public health. Trump’s picks have spread vaccine misinformation, even though the data is overwhelming here in terms of the effectiveness, when you compare the cases of major disease annually in the US before measles, mumps, whooping cough vaccines to now, when they’re more widely available, almost, in some cases, 99 to 100 percent drop in terms of cases annually. So what impact will all three of these people potentially have on public health?
Alice Miranda Ollstein:
It could be huge. I mean, we already have public health experts worried about the worst case scenario, which is basically what we saw during COVID 19, which was a lot of people who didn’t need to get sick and die, getting sick and dying. And so I mean, that could happen in terms of a new outbreak. Like we’re seeing these cases of bird flu that are very troubling, but that could also happen with a resurgence of some of these diseases that we made so much progress on over the past several decades. We could really see that backtrack.
Laura Barron-Lopez:
Alice Miranda Ollstein, thank you for your time.
Alice Miranda Ollstein:
Thank you.