Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

The State of Health in America: A Political and Scientific Crossfire

News

The State of Health in America: A Political and Scientific Crossfire

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert Kennedy Jr. testifies before the Senate Finance Committee at the Dirksen Senate Office Building on September 04, 2025 in Washington, DC.

(Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)

At the heart of the Trump administration’s health agenda is a dramatic reorientation of public health priorities. Secretary of Health and Human Services, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. declared during a Senate hearing last week:

“We at HHS are enacting a once-in-a-generation shift from a sick-care system, to a true health care system that tackles the root causes of chronic disease.”

“Make America Healthy Again” has been met with both praise and fierce resistance. Republican Senator Mike Crapo supported the initiative, saying:


“President Trump and Secretary Kennedy have made a steadfast commitment to make America healthy again”.

Kennedy’s long-standing skepticism of vaccines has become central to his tenure.

Chronic illness, environmental toxicity, and mental health neglect have long plagued our systems. But when that vision is paired with vaccine suspicion, the firing of CDC Director Susan Monarez, and a panel stacked with anti-vaccine voices, the promise begins to fracture.

Monarez, in a Wall Street Journal op-ed, accused Kennedy of pressuring her to:

“Compromise science itself” and approve recommendations from a panel “filled with people who have publicly expressed antivaccine rhetoric”.

Kennedy’s response? “The people at the CDC who oversaw [COVID-19 mitigation]... are the people who will be leaving.” That’s not reform. That’s purging.

Senator Tina Smith challenged Kennedy directly:

“When were you lying, sir – when you told this committee that you were not anti-vax? Or when you told Americans that there's no safe and effective vaccine?”



Kennedy replied: “Both things are true”.

Former CDC directors and health professionals have condemned Kennedy’s approach. In a joint op-ed, they warned:

“Public health shouldn’t be partisan. Vaccines have saved millions of lives under administrations of both parties. Parents deserve a CDC they can trust to put children above politics, evidence above ideology and facts above fear”.

Senator John Barrasso, a physician, added:

“I’m a doctor. Vaccines work”.

When trust erodes, so does the very architecture of care. The tug of war between Kennedy’s populist health reform, Trump’s political backing, and the scientific community’s alarm has left America’s health landscape deeply polarized. As Kennedy invoked his father’s legacy:

“Progress is a nice word, but change is its motivator. And change has its enemies.”

The question remains: will this change heal or harm?

Public health is not a stage for performance—it’s a covenant with the people. And right now, that covenant is being rewritten in ink that smudges truth with ideology.

While this political theater unfolds, the communities most devastated by COVID-19—Latino and Black families—remain largely unacknowledged in the administration’s rhetoric.

In Louisiana, Black residents made up 70% of COVID-19 deaths, despite being only 32% of the population. Latino patients in the West and Midwest were hospitalized at rates over nine times higher than non-Hispanic Whites during the pandemic’s peak. These aren’t just numbers. They’re testimonies of structural neglect.

The virus didn’t discriminate, but our systems did. Marginalized communities faced compounded risks: frontline jobs without protections, multigenerational housing that made isolation impossible, and limited access to care. Vaccine rollout was uneven. Trust was fractured.

The state of health in America isn’t just a tug-of-war between Kennedy, Trump, and the CDC. It’s a reckoning.

Will we build a health system rooted in dignity, science, and mutual recognition—or will we let force of personality and chaos dictate the terms of our survival?

America’s health deserves more than slogans. It deserves stewardship.

Hugo Balta is the executive editor of the Fulcrum and the publisher of the Latino News Network.

Read More

Ingrassia Exit Highlights Rare GOP Pushback to Trump’s Personnel Picks

President Donald Trump speaks at a White House press briefing on Jan. 30, 2025.

Credit: Jonah Elkowitz/Medill News Service

Ingrassia Exit Highlights Rare GOP Pushback to Trump’s Personnel Picks

WASHINGTON — Paul Ingrassia withdrew his nomination to lead the Office of Special Counsel on Tuesday night after facing Republican pushback over past controversial statements.

While Ingrassia joins a growing list of President Donald Trump’s nominees who have withdrawn from consideration, many who have aired controversial beliefs or lack requisite qualifications have still been appointed or are still in the nomination process.

Keep ReadingShow less
A Revolution in Congressional Decision-Making
low light photography of armchairs in front of desk

A Revolution in Congressional Decision-Making

The dysfunction of today’s federal government is not simply the product of political division or individual leaders; it is rooted in the internal rules of Congress itself. The Founders, in one of their few major oversights, granted Congress the authority to make its own procedural rules (Article I, Section 5) without establishing any framework for how it should operate. Over time, this blank check has produced a legislative process built to serve partisan power, not public representation.

The result is a Congress that often rewards obstruction and gridlock over compromise and action. The Founders imagined representatives closely tied to their constituents—one member for every 30,000 to 50,000 citizens. Today, that ratio has ballooned to one for every 765,000 in the House, and in the Senate, each member can represent tens of millions (e.g., California). As the population has grown, representation has become distant and impersonal, while procedural rules have tightened the grip of party leadership. Major issues can no longer reach the floor unless the majority party permits it. The link between citizens and decisions has nearly vanished.

Keep ReadingShow less
Lasting peace requires accepting Israel’s right to exist

US President Donald Trump hailed a "tremendous day for the Middle East" as he and regional leaders signed a declaration on Oct. 13, 2025, meant to cement a ceasefire in Gaza, hours after Israel and Hamas exchanged hostages and prisoners. (TNS)

Lasting peace requires accepting Israel’s right to exist

President Trump took a rhetorical victory lap in front of the Israeli parliament Monday. Ignoring his patented departures from the teleprompter, which violated all sorts of valuable norms, it was a speech Trump deserved to give. The ending of the war — even if it’s just a ceasefire — and the release of Israel’s last living hostages is, by itself, a monumental diplomatic accomplishment, and Trump deserves to take a bow.

Much of Trump’s prepared text was forward-looking, calling for a new “golden age” for the Middle East to mirror the one allegedly unfolding here in America. I’m generally skeptical about “golden ages,” here or abroad, and especially leery about any talk about “everlasting peace” in a region that has known “peace” for only a handful of years since the fall of the Ottoman Empire.

Keep ReadingShow less
A child looks into an empty fridge-freezer in a domestic kitchen.

The Trump administration’s suspension of the USDA’s Household Food Security Report halts decades of hunger data tracking.

Getty Images, Catherine Falls Commercial

Trump Gives Up the Fight Against Hunger

A Vanishing Measure of Hunger

Consider a hunger policy director at a state Department of Social Services studying food insecurity data across the state. For years, she has relied on the USDA’s annual Household Food Security Report to identify where hunger is rising, how many families are skipping meals, and how many children go to bed hungry. Those numbers help her target resources and advocate for stronger programs.

Now there is no new data. The survey has been “suspended for review,” officially to allow for a “methodological reassessment” and cost analysis. Critics say the timing and language suggest political motives. It is one of many federal data programs quietly dropped under a Trump executive order on so-called “nonessential statistics,” a phrase that almost parodies itself. Labeling hunger data “nonessential” is like turning off a fire alarm because it makes too much noise; it implies that acknowledging food insecurity is optional and reveals more about the administration’s priorities than reality.

Keep ReadingShow less