Debate Over CDC Role Intensifies After HHS Shake-up, Opinion Argues

An opinion published Monday argues that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention should be reined in, even as many medical experts voice alarm over Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s public statements and recent personnel decisions.

Jeffrey A. Singer, a Phoenix-based surgeon and senior fellow at the Cato Institute, wrote that concerns about Kennedy's unscientific claims — including ties between vaccines and autism that experts say have been debunked, and what he described as exaggerated warnings about food dyes and attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder — are valid. But Singer wrote that those concerns must be weighed alongside what he calls long-standing problems with the CDC's expansion into areas beyond its original mission.

Singer's opinion piece, published in the New York Post, also highlights recent moves at the federal level that have intensified the debate about the agency's future. He wrote that the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices was reduced from 17 members to seven, that some new appointees share Kennedy's views, and that HHS fired CDC Director Susan Monarez, prompting the resignation of three senior CDC officials. Those personnel changes have drawn public criticism from medical experts who have questioned Kennedy's scientific claims.

At the same time, Singer said, many of those same experts were largely silent during parts of the COVID-19 pandemic when, he wrote, the CDC under pressure from teachers' unions kept children out of school for nearly two years while European countries largely remained open. He also recounted accusations that public-health authorities leaned on social-media companies to limit the reach of medical voices that disagreed with official guidance. Singer argued that outrage over the agency's politicization appears to follow shifts in political power rather than a consistent set of public-health principles.

Tracing the agency's history, the opinion notes that the CDC was founded in 1946 as the Communicable Disease Center to combat malaria, smallpox and tuberculosis and to provide research and logistical support to state and local health authorities. The piece says the agency broadened its remit over decades into personal health matters and issues such as firearm violence, a trajectory Singer described as "mission creep" that attracts political and lobbying pressures.

Singer called for a return to a more narrowly focused federal public-health role, arguing that public health works best when tailored to local communities and administered by state and local authorities in coordination with the CDC. He wrote that scientific debate typically occurs within professional societies and that federal guidelines can, in practice, become de facto mandates that crowd out competing views.

The opinion credited recent examples of pushback against centralized federal guidance. Singer cited several professional medical organizations that publicly disagreed with the CDC's COVID-19 booster guidance and said New Mexico's health department will consult its pharmacy board to include input from other organizations. He also noted California, Oregon and Washington's plans to form a multistate "health alliance" to develop independent vaccine recommendations.

Singer said those developments show that states and professional groups can reclaim influence over public-health decisions even in a highly centralized system. He wrote that he generally supports the new CDC and Food and Drug Administration booster guidance, which he said aligns U.S. policy more closely with other countries, but opposes creating barriers that prevent people from obtaining vaccines that officials deem unnecessary.

The piece concluded with an appeal to Congress to restore the CDC to its original function as a coordinating and support agency for state and local public-health authorities, rather than a body that issues broad guidance extending into personal health choices and political debates. Singer argued that such a change would better protect Americans by keeping public health grounded in local evidence and professional debate.

The New York Post article presents an argument about the future structure and influence of federal public-health institutions at a moment of leadership change at HHS and the CDC. The commentary reflects an ongoing national discussion about where authority over public-health decisions should reside and how to balance scientific guidance, political oversight and local autonomy.

Jeffrey A. Singer, who authored the opinion piece, is a practicing general surgeon in Phoenix and a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. His most recent book is Your Body, Your Health Care (Cato Institute).