Ex-CDC chief accuses RFK Jr. of firing her after voicing vaccine-panel concerns

WASHINGTON — Susan Monarez, the former Centers for Disease Control and Prevention director who was fired Aug. 27 after less than four weeks on the job, told lawmakers that Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. pressured her to rubber-stamp vaccine recommendations from the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices and to purge career officials who opposed him. Kennedy has denied Monarez’s allegations, and his aides counter that there was no improper interference in the agency’s science.

Monarez testified before the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions that Kennedy replaced ACIP members with his own picks in June and that she insisted on scrutinizing the committee’s guidance before it was issued. She said Kennedy directed her to commit in advance to approving every ACIP recommendation, regardless of the scientific evidence, and to dismiss career officials responsible for vaccine policy without cause. “I refused to do it,” Monarez said, adding that she had built a career on scientific integrity and feared approving policies that could reduce access to lifesaving vaccines for children and others in need. “If I was unwilling to do both, I should resign,” she said, describing a confrontation in which she was told she would be fired if she would not comply.

Monarez first detailed her confrontation with Kennedy in a Wall Street Journal op-ed published Sept. 4 ahead of Kennedy’s testimony. Kennedy has flatly denied Monarez’s claim that he ordered her to “rubber-stamp” vaccine recommendations, and Monarez countered that his statements to lawmakers did not reflect her memory of events. In parallel, Debra Houry, the CDC’s former chief medical officer, testified that Kennedy censored CDC science, politicized processes and stripped leaders of independence, and that she resigned in protest after the director’s dismissal. Houry said, “CDC labs and data systems are a nation’s first line of defense against pandemics and biothreats, but those defenses are being weakened under the secretary.”

Houry’s remarks added fuel to the Republican critique of Kennedy’s management style. Several GOP lawmakers urged caution in drawing broad conclusions from Monarez’s and Houry’s accounts. Oklahoma Sen. Markwayne Mullin, who previously questioned whether a recording existed of Monarez’s conversation with Kennedy, later acknowledged that he had been mistaken in claiming a recording would prove her wrong, but he said others had disputed her memory. Sen. Ashley Moody of Florida argued that holding a hearing with the two former CDC leaders was unnecessary, accusing Democrats of seeking to undermine the previous Trump administration. Cassidy defended the hearing as part of Congress’s oversight role, saying the panel must examine whether the firing reflected proper governance rather than political bias. “Dr. Monarez was the first CDC director requiring confirmation. We Republicans supported making the CDC director Senate-confirmed,” Cassidy said, signaling that the inquiry would continue.

Monarez noted that she had retained attorney Mark Zaid to help navigate the fallout of her firing and stated that she never discussed politics with him. Republicans pressed her for corroboration, while several argued that the hearing was an important check on whether political considerations had intruded into science. Some critics suggested that the questions about political interference should focus on the broader governance of vaccine policy rather than a single personnel decision. Nevertheless, the dispute spotlighted the tension between political leadership and scientific integrity within a federal health agency during a period of heightened scrutiny of vaccine policy and pandemic preparedness.

The HELP Committee’s investigation into the CDC incident is expected to continue, with lawmakers intent on understanding how vaccine recommendations are developed and how staff protections for scientific independence operate in a politically charged environment. Monarez’s and Houry’s accounts have fed a broader debate about the independence of public health guidance in Washington, particularly as Kennedy pushes a vaccine policy agenda that diverges from traditional CDC practice. Officials cautioned that, regardless of the outcome of the hearing, public confidence hinges on transparent processes and a consistent adherence to scientific evidence in vaccine policy.

As the Capitol scrutinizes the episode, health-policy experts say the central issue is whether political leadership can maintain scientifically independent guidance while pursuing a policy agenda. In the meantime, the incident has underscored the fragile balance between governance and public health expertise within federal agencies, a balance that many see as essential to ensuring vaccine recommendations are grounded in rigorous science and public welfare rather than political calculations. The ongoing discussion will likely influence how future leadership approaches vaccine policy and how Congress oversees scientific decision-making during health crises.