Shortly after his inauguration in January of 2025, President Donald Trump appointed Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as U.S. Secretary of Human Health Services despite pushback from legislators. Kennedy has spent most of his career as an environmental lawyer, which does not provide him with the necessary acumen to properly fulfill the responsibilities of his new position as Secretary of HHS. As secretary, he has several responsibilities, including advising the president on healthcare issues, developing and implementing new health policies based on scientific research and managing the Food and Drug Administration.
A key part of the FDA’s primary role is to ensure the safety and effectiveness of the food and drugs available to Americans. This is primarily done through comprehensive evaluations to ensure standards are being upheld. Kennedy’s stance as an anti-vaxxer does not inherently indicate he is unfit for this new role, but his recent sweeping staff cuts make his incompetence clear. The misguided cuts within the U.S. FDA represent Kennedy’s glaring ineptitude to fulfill the role Trump appointed him to. To his credit, Kennedy has been gradually eliminating harmful food dyes in the U.S.
As part of the current presidential administration’s initiative to reduce federal spending through mass layoffs, Kennedy cut 10,000 jobs across HHS, with 3,500 being from the FDA. Although the rationale for this massive reduction in force was to eliminate redundant positions and increase efficiency, the practical result was that many essential scientists and experts in niche fields were laid off. These employment cuts ultimately led to the FDA’s inability to conduct safety quality checks. The danger in this lapse of the FDA’s responsibilities is the increased potential for transmission of foodborne illnesses and bacteria — like salmonella, listeria and E. Coli. Without the FDA’s safety checks, there will be uncertainty regarding the quality of foods available to Americans.
The fact that after the staff cuts, the FDA could not continue fulfilling its minimum responsibilities demonstrates that Kennedy’s haphazard reduction in force was ill-informed. While trying to remove redundant positions, he failed to distinguish between unnecessary and vital ones. His lack of comprehension of the nuances present in these positions stems from his limited expertise in a health service environment. His previous career as an environmental lawyer has little in common with his new position, leading one to question the validity of his appointment.
Reducing federal spending is a positive endeavor for any government agency; however, the FDA’s funding should be carefully preserved, given its importance in maintaining the health of Americans and preventing possible epidemics. The U.S. Department of Agriculture has a budget over five times that of the FDA. Still, despite this, both agencies experienced similar levels of staff cuts, further highlighting the lack of nuance in the approach of figures like Kennedy, who have no background in health services.
