Robert F. Kennedy is injecting misinformation into his role as Secretary of Health and Human Services
Article by Matthew Knauer
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s journey over the past calendar year has been tumultuous; he began as a Democratic presidential candidate, dropped out, re-entered the race as an Independent, ultimately placing fourth and endorsing Donald Trump. The whirlwind ended with Trump’s victory, who then appointed Kennedy as Secretary of Health and Human Services — a decision that may set American health back decades.
Trump’s choice is appalling, given Kennedy’s lengthy history as an anti-vaccine advocate. In 2021, he claimed that records showed the “COVID-19 vaccine [was] the deadliest ever made.” The Poynter Institute quickly debunked this claim, identifying numerous errors in his data.
The Center for Countering Digital Hate even named Kennedy’s organization, the Children’s Health Defense, part of the “Disinformation Dozen” — one of the top 12 spreaders of COVID-19 misinformation. Due to his dispersal of misinformation, Instagram and Facebook banned him until he returned in 2022.
Since he was elected Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kennedy has continued to preach dangerous rhetoric, specifically surrounding the measles vaccine.
“When I was a kid, everybody got measles, and [that] gave you lifetime protection against measles infection,” Kennedy said in a March interview with Fox’s Sean Hannity. “The vaccine doesn’t do that. The vaccine is effective for some people for life, but for many people it wanes. There are adverse events from the vaccine. It does cause deaths every year. It causes all the illnesses that measles itself causes, like encephalitis and blindness.”
Yet, the Infectious Disease Society of America stated that there have been “no deaths related to the measles vaccine in healthy individuals,” and that getting the shot is safer than contracting the disease for “more than 99 percent of the population.”
Kennedy’s claims not only contradict scientific consensus but also demonstrate a troubling lack of awareness; just weeks before his interview with Fox, an unvaccinated six-year-old died from measles — the first such death in a decade. Nonetheless, he aired an interview on one of the most-watched US news networks in which he advocated against the measles vaccine.
Kennedy has certainly left his mark on American health; in four months, the US has already reported 885 measles cases, on pace for the highest amount since 1991.
On April 24, Stanford Medicine released a study, claiming that at current rates, measles could soon become an endemic illness. Nathan Lo, a physician, led the study in hopes of helping decision-makers set vaccine policy in the future.
“Our country is on a tipping point for measles to once again become a common household disease,” Lo said.
Lo’s findings were harrowing: If measles vaccinations drop by just 10 percent, right around their current rate, the US would experience over 11 million measles cases in the next 25 years. Over the previous 25 years, since 2000, the US has experienced just 5,369 measles cases.
Finally, in April, Kennedy reversed his stance, endorsing the measles vaccine and instructing the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention “to supply pharmacies and Texas-run clinics with needed MMR vaccines.” But the impact had already been made, and Kennedy’s true colors shone through. When the Secretary of Health and Human Services is far too quick to endorse conspiracy theories, it threatens the health and lives of American citizens.
On March 4, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) ruled 5-4 in favor of San Francisco, allowing the city to discharge unchecked pollutants into the San Francisco Bay. This emerged after the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) raised concerns regarding violations of The Clean Water Act, which set water quality standards by limiting the amount of pollutants that can be present in the water.
The City of San Francisco operates a combined sewage system that discharges treated or partially treated wastewater into the San Francisco Bay, especially during heavy rains. To avoid flooding, the city is faced with a dilemma: discharge partially treated wastewater that may contain harmful pollutants, or risk the city flooding. This is what caught the attention of the EPA, as they are concerned that the city of San Francisco has been discharging levels of pollutants into the bay that exceed limits set by The Clean Water Act in order to avoid flooding.
San Francisco argues that they are set to unreasonable standards considering the city's ongoing improvements to its aging infrastructure. In response, California state assembly member Jesse Gabriel has proposed amendments to AB 794, the California Safe Drinking Water Act. The amendment intends to establish maximum contaminant levels for perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in California’s waters. PFAS are known as “forever chemicals” due to their potential for bioaccumulation and long lasting nature. They pose significant risks as endocrine disruptors, which can be detrimental for human and animal development, as well as heightened risks for cancer and immune system damage.
If these new regulations pass, San Francisco will be held accountable for the PFAS they discharge into the Bay by requiring more treatment for discharged water.
The Trump administration is capping the work of federal agencies aimed at limiting climate change to make way for American ‘resource dominance’
Article by Mariel Goodhart and Gabrielle Franklin
During the 2024 election, Trump ran on a platform that supported the idea of climate change being a hoax. He has generally regarded legislation aimed at reducing sources of climate change as inconvenient to his approach of exploiting the environment for a short-term profit. The ideology was exemplified in a recent executive order, “Protecting American Energy From State Overreach,” which aims to end all state and local laws that regulate and put policies on the production or use of domestic energy resources.
Within the order, Trump wrote, “Many states have enacted, or are in the process of enacting, burdensome and ideologically motivated ‘climate change’ or energy policies that threaten American energy dominance and our economic and national security.” Trump also repeated the action he took in his first term of pulling the US out of the Paris Agreement.
Mitch Cohen, an environmental science teacher, emphasized the global impact of removing environmental regulations in the US.
“The Paris Accord is trying to get a handle on greenhouse gases [to] prevent the worst of climate change. The US is the second biggest contributor of greenhouse gases, [so when] we pull out of [the agreement], we have to ask what message it sends to the rest of the world,” Cohen said.
Trump's senior advisor, Elon Musk, was given the role of running a newly formed agency, the Department of Government Efficiency ( DOGE). The goal of DOGE is to cut spending and the workforce of federal agencies, claiming that it will save money for the government and individual taxpayers.
DOGE’s website boasts a total of $160 billion in estimated savings. However, the Partnership for Public Service estimated that with the paid leaves, rehiring of wrongfully fired employees and loss of productivity, these cuts will have a $135 billion cost to taxpayers.
Federal agencies working on climate issues that have experienced significant cuts include the U.S. Department of Energy, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the National Science Foundation (NSF), the U.S Department of Agriculture and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Daniel Meer has experienced the impact of the Trump administration firsthand. After working as a petroleum geologist in the private oil and gas industry for nearly a decade, Meer focused his skills on a new job at the EPA. He started as a remedial project manager in the EPA’s Superfund, which focuses on hazardous waste management. During his 31 years at the EPA, he worked in management ranks at both the Air Division and the Water Division, before returning to the Superfund as the region nine supervisor.
Meer loved his job at the EPA until Trump took office for his first term, and he retired from the EPA in 2020. When the Trump administration took over, Meer recognized profound changes within the agency that were much more significant than what the EPA had experienced under any other administration.
“We [at the agency] were the professionals. We did our jobs, and we adjusted according to the administration. Some administrations were more pro-industry, and some administrations were more pro-environment. But, the thing that stood out in the Trump administration was the lack of professionalism by the political appointees,” Meer said.
The administrators under Trump were the first to demonstrate little effort to understand the science that is behind the agency's actions.
The current administrator, Lee Zeldin, who was sworn in this January, has led the EPA in rolling back most of its regulations and limiting climate work. In Zedlin’s op-ed for the Wall Street Journal, he wrote, “By cutting through red tape and resolving the backlog of state and tribal implementation plans, we are creating an environment where businesses can thrive and infrastructure can be built. This is how America will become the artificial-intelligence capital of the world — by removing barriers to ingenuity and investment and advancing cooperative federalism.”
Among other damages, Cohen believes this attack on science is sending the US on a direct path to a new level of climate disaster. He pointed out that the administration’s focus on immediate cost-saving overlooks the potential for far greater financial burdens down the line.
“Cutting funding to [environmental] research to understand and predict [the consequences of climate change] might save some dollars in the short term, but in the long haul, it’s only going to be significantly more expensive,” Cohen said.
Many EPA employees are currently bracing themselves for their termination. Around 280 employees received notice of a “reduction of force” that would start on July 31, and could result in employees being reassigned within the EPA or completely let go. The EPA is also planning to close the Office of Research and Development, which will contribute to the weakening of the EPA and lead to even more staffing reductions.
“I think it's a conscious effort to hamstring the federal government from enforcing the law,” Meer said.
Similar reductions to the ones that are currently gutting the EPA are also being made at NOAA, an environmental agency that is in charge of collecting and spreading information on the oceans and atmosphere.
Rebecca Howard is a Marine Biologist who worked at the Groundfish Assessment Program at the NOAA Alaska Fisheries Science Center. Howard was working on the planning of the Summer Groundfish Survey when, on Feb. 27, she received an email as notice of her termination. The explanation given was vague, stating that "The agency finds that you are not fit for continued employment because your ability, knowledge and/or skills do not fit the Agency's current needs."
The Office of Personnel Management implements Congress’s laws for federal civil servants, and normally, it makes it very difficult for agencies to let go of their employees. However, there is a workaround that the leaders of these agencies are currently exploiting.
“If funding is eliminated, they can eliminate jobs. There's a very complicated formula that they use to decide who gets chopped, and unfortunately, it's the people who were hired most recently,” Meer said.
Howard's termination can most likely be accounted for by the fact that she was a probationary employee.
“The first year is the probationary period, and those [employees do] not have civil service protection during that year, [and can be terminated] with very little issue,” Meer said.
Howard believes the agencies have lacked the sensitivity to approach their unnecessary firings with respect for their employees.
“I don't feel like there was a lot of transparency, especially at the lower levels. My supervisor was unaware I was going to be laid off that day, or at all,” Howard said.
The sudden cuts to the workforce at NOAA are affecting its ability to operate. Howard remarked that before the termination of these probationary employees, they were already having trouble staffing their surveys.
“Across the agency, there has been difficulty collecting data because we didn't have enough people. Now [NOAA] has even [fewer people] than they did before,” Howard said. “[NOAA has] been collecting data about the planet for decades, and stopping that is a huge problem.”
The loss of continuity in scientific knowledge disrupts the flow of information used for environmental and policy decisions. For example, without adequate fish stock assessments, which rely on consistent funding and data collection, science-based catch limits needed for preventing overfishing become harder to enforce. This allows for harvest levels to boost short-term profits for the fishing industry but jeopardize the long-term health and sustainability of fisheries.
In “Restoring American Seafood Competitiveness”, an executive order from April 17, Trump stated the government's intentions to remove species from NOAA’s Seafood Import Monitoring Program and implement an America First Seafood Strategy by ramping up fishing and aquaculture.
“During the past four years, our fishermen were once again crushed under the pressure of unnecessary regulations and unfavorable policies. It is vital that we now build upon our previous hard work with new, additional measures to promote domestic fishing,” Trump said.
The reduction of scientific authority benefits the interests of those opposing climate regulations, such as Trump, with his claim that climate change is an “expensive hoax.” For him, a decrease in supporting scientific evidence is beneficial because it limits the justification for creating regulations.
These internal conditions are directly hampering agency operations and risk long-term damage. Addressing the setbacks will require significant recovery efforts, including restoring staff levels and rebuilding institutional knowledge through what Meer called a “big brain drain.”
Despite the difficulties, there is still hope for young people interested in the field.
“Look, it is not going to go away if we just defund [environmental agencies],” Cohen said. “So we're still going to need people who are going to be able to understand it and spread the word about it. It is more important now than it’s ever been.” Howard suggests that those interested in pursuing climate science remain persistent despite the current instability of the field.
“You shouldn’t give up on it, especially if you’re early on in your career,” Howard said. “We are going to need a lot of people to recover from this, and it is going to take a lot of people to rebuild. One thing that I don’t like to say, but feel that I need to, is [to] try to have skills that are transferable. In case we don’t come out of this as soon as we’d like,” Howard said.
Maintaining a positive mindset and not giving up on protecting the environment are key in discouraging circumstances
“Stay optimistic,” Meer said. "Times look bad, but just keep doing the right thing and you’ll be okay.”
The Trump Administration's impact on the Endangered Species Act
Article and infographic by Kate Morgan
In a series of highly disrupted actions during 2025, the Trump administration rolled back sweeping provisions in the Endangered Species Act (ESA) that would make it much harder to protect animals and plants, sparking outrage from both environmentalists and state leaders. The Trump administration wants to change the ESA’s definition of “harm” to make it so that only directly injuring or killing an endangered animal counts; activities like cutting down trees or filling in streams where these species live would no longer be illegal. At the same time, they’re tightening the rules for declaring critical habitat, resulting in fewer areas getting the special protections they need. Critical habitat under the ESA refers to specific areas, both within and outside a species’ known range, that contain the physical or biological features essential to its conservation and may require special management or protection.