A group of former Republican and Democratic officials are forming a new political party called "Forward." Former Democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang and former Republican Christine Todd Whitman joined CNN's New Day to discuss.
Site Navigation
Search
Latest Stories
Start your day right!
Get latest updates and insights delivered to your inbox.
Top Stories
Latest news
Read More
Robert F. Kennedy Jr., January 29, 2025 in Washington, DC.
(Photo by Chen Mengtong/China News Service/VCG via Getty Images)
Understanding the Debate on Health Secretary Kennedy’s Vaccine Panelists
Oct 15, 2025
Summary
On June 9, 2025, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), dismissed all 17 members of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). Secretary Kennedy claimed the move was necessary to eliminate “conflicts of interest” and restore public trust in vaccines, which he argued had been compromised by the influence of pharmaceutical companies. However, this decision strays from precedent and has drawn significant criticism from medical experts and public health officials across the country. Some argue that this shake-up undermines scientific independence and opens the door to politicized decision-making in vaccine policy.
Background: What Is ACIP?
The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) is a federal advisory group that helps guide national vaccine policy. Established in 1964, it has over 60 years of credibility as an evidence-based body of medical and scientific experts. ACIP makes official recommendations on vaccine schedules for both children and adults, determining which immunizations are required for school entry, covered by health insurance, and prioritized in public health programs. The committee is composed of specialists in immunology, epidemiology, pediatrics, infectious disease, and public health, all of whom are vetted for scientific rigor and ethical standards. ACIP’s guidance holds national weight, shaping both public perception of vaccines and the policies of institutions like schools, hospitals, and insurers.
Departure From the Typical Appointment Process
The standard appointment process for ACIP members is designed to ensure transparency, expertise, and independence. Members are nominated through a public call for applications and are evaluated by a CDC-appointed panel for qualifications, scientific credibility, ethical standing, and the absence of financial conflicts of interest. The process includes interviews, background checks, and a public comment period before final approval. This rigorous, multi-month process has long protected the panel from political or commercial influence and upheld its role as a science-driven authority.
In a sharp departure from this traditional process, Secretary Kennedy abruptly dismissed all 17 sitting members of ACIP and appointed eight replacements within 48 hours. There was no public call for nominations, no CDC oversight, no background vetting, and no opportunity for public comment. This bypassed the usual protocols designed to ensure balanced, evidence-based decision-making. Critics argue that this move severely undermines the committee’s credibility and violates established norms for appointing federal health advisers.
New Appointees
The new panelists include several individuals who have publicly questioned vaccine safety and efficacy. Among them is Martin Kulldorff, a biostatistician and co-author of the Great Barrington Declaration, which opposed COVID-19 lockdowns and mass vaccination. Robert Malone, who has claimed to be the original inventor of mRNA vaccine technology, has become a leading voice against COVID vaccines. Retsef Levi, an MIT professor, has criticized vaccine risk assessment methodologies, while Vicky Pebsworth has questioned the necessity of the HPV vaccine. These appointees have ties to vaccine-skeptical organizations and have frequently voiced positions that contradict scientific consensus. Their appointment has raised concerns about the objectivity and reliability of ACIP’s future recommendations.
New Panel Agenda
Since taking over, the new ACIP members have launched a series of controversial initiatives. They recommended removing thimerosal, a mercury-based preservative, from all flu vaccines, despite longstanding evidence confirming its safety. The panel also announced a review of the cumulative effects of the childhood vaccine schedule, echoing concerns often promoted by anti-vaccine activists but widely dismissed by the scientific community. Additionally, panelists have called for renewed investigations into vaccine ingredients and side effects, many of which have already undergone extensive scrutiny and review. These agenda items signal a shift away from long-established science and toward revisiting topics long considered settled.
Policy and Legal Implications
Under the new panel’s guidance, several COVID-19 vaccines are no longer recommended for children and pregnant individuals. Researchers at Harvard University expect this change to have far-reaching effects, such as slowing research that has the potential to reduce illness. Insurance companies may no longer be obligated to cover vaccines that are no longer officially recommended, creating new financial barriers to access. Public health experts warn that vaccination rates may decline, leading to resurgences of preventable diseases such as measles and bird flu. There is also an ongoing lawsuit involving multiple medical professional societies to determine whether his appointments were unlawful, specifically in terms of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), a federal law that ensures advisory committees remain balanced and free from improper influence.
Conclusion
The dismissal and replacement of ACIP’s full membership by RFK Jr. has triggered a national debate over the future of vaccine policy in the United States. Critics argue that the move undermines the scientific independence of public health decision-making and threatens to erode decades of progress in immunization coverage and disease prevention. ACIP’s next formal votes in the fall of 2025 will provide an early indication of how the new panel approaches vaccine recommendations, coverage, and distribution. Legal proceedings and the panel’s actions in the coming months will help shape public perception of this significant shift in advisory leadership.
Understanding the Debate on Health Secretary Kennedy’s Vaccine Panelists was first published on the Alliance for Civic Engagement and was republished with permission.
Vaidehi More is an undergraduate student at The Ohio State University pursuing a dual degree in Public Policy and Biology on the pre-med track.
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended
MQ-9 Predator Drones Hunt Migrants at the Border
Oct 15, 2025
FT HUACHUCA, Ariz. - Inside a windowless and dark shipping container turned into a high-tech surveillance command center, two analysts peered at their own set of six screens that showed data coming in from an MQ-9 Predator B drone. Both were looking for two adults and a child who had crossed the U.S.-Mexico border and had fled when a Border Patrol agent approached in a truck.
Inside the drone hangar on the other side of the Fort Huachuca base sat another former shipping container, this one occupied by a drone pilot and a camera operator who pivoted the drone's camera to scan nine square miles of shrubs and saguaros for the migrants. Like the command center, the onetime shipping container was dark, lit only by the glow of the computer screens.
The hunt for the three migrants embodied how advanced technology has become a vital part of the Trump administration's efforts to secure the southern border. This type of drone, previously used in warfare, is operated by the National Air Security Operations division of U.S. Customs and Border Protection at the Army base about 70 miles south of Tucson. A reporter was allowed to observe the operation in April on the condition that personnel not be named and that no photographs be taken.
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security allocated 12,000 hours of MQ-9 drone flight time this year at the Fort Huachuca base, and states that the flights cost $3,800 per hour. However, a 2015 inspector general report estimated the cost to be closer to $13,000, factoring in personnel salaries and operational costs. Maintenance issues and bad weather often mean the drones fly around half the allotted hours, officials said.

An MQ-9 Predator B drone prepares for takeoff at the National Air Security Operations Center in Sierra Vista, Arizona. Photo by Steve Fisher/Puente News Collaborative
With the precipitous drop in migrant crossings at the southern U.S. border, the drones are now tasked with fewer missions. That means they have the time to track small groups or even individual border jumpers trekking north through the desert, including a father and child.
The drone flying this day was mounted with radar, called Vehicle and Dismount Exploitation Radar, or VaDER, that could identify any moving object in the drone’s sight, and pinpoint them with color-coded dots for the two analysts in the first container. The program had already located three Border Patrol agents, one on foot and two on motorcycles, searching for the migrants. The analysts had also identified three cows and two horses, headed towards Mexico.
Then, one of the analysts spotted something.
“We got them,” he said to his colleague, who had been scanning the terrain. “Good work.”
The analyst dropped a pin on the migrants, and the VaDER program began tracking their movement in a blue trail. Now, he had to guide agents on the ground to them.
“We've got an adult male and a child, I think, tucked in this bush,” the analyst radioed to his team, as he toggled between the live video to an infrared camera view that shows the heat signature of every living thing in range. The analyst saw his Border Patrol colleagues approaching on motorcycles.
The roar of the oncoming machines scared up a bird, the tracking program showed. The migrants began running.
“OK, it looks like they're starting,” the camera operator radioed to the Border Patrol agents. “They’re hearing the bikes. They hear you guys.” The camera operator and the other personnel spoke in the professional, matter-of-fact tone of 911 operators.
One adult and the child began scrambling up a hill. “They’re moving north and west, mainly,” the camera operator said. “Starting to pick up the pace going uphill.”

VaDER GMTI imagery output from a CBP MQ-9. Image courtesy of U.S. Customs and Border Protection
The agents rushed in on the pair and detained them. It was a mother and her child. The drone team turned its attention to the third person, who was stumbling through the brush and making a beeline for the Mexican border.
“If you cut due south from your current location,” the drone pilot said to the camera operator. “You should pick up some sign.”
The camera operator, as directed, panned across the desert, scanning farther and farther south.
“I’ve got them,” he said when he spotted someone running. He radioed the coordinates to the Border Patrol team. By now, the man, carrying a backpack, had scaled a hill.
“He’s on the ridge line right now, working his way up due south, slowly,” the camera operator radioed.
Then the man dropped something.
“Hey, mark that spot,” the camera operator said. “He just threw a pack, right here where my crosshairs are at.”
Agents would go back later and see if the backpack contained drugs, an analyst said. “Usually, if it’s food or water, they’re not going to do that,” he said.
On this spring morning, the drone wasn't the only airborne asset deployed. A helicopter had joined the chase to catch the southbound man, who stumbled, got up, and kept running.
“He took a pretty good spill there,” an analyst said into the radio.
“We have help inbound, three point five minutes out,” the camera operator said.
A helicopter came into the drone’s view. It swooped in, circling the location of the man, who was by now hiding under a bush.
“You just passed over him,” the camera operator radioed the helicopter pilot. “He’s between you and that saguaro.”
With a keystroke, he switched to infrared vision to find the man’s heat profile through the brush to make sure he still had him.
Guided by the camera operator, the pilot landed the helicopter in a cloud of dust near the cowering target. The video feed showed agents jump out of the aircraft, detain the man, and load him into the helicopter. The chopper lifted off and tilted back north towards a nearby Border Patrol post.
“Thanks, sir, appreciate all the help,” the analyst said to the helicopter pilot.
Mission accomplished, the drone pilot turned the MQ-9 back along the U.S.-Mexico border, scanning the vast desert in search of more migrants. The military is planning to deliver a third MQ-9 drone to the base this fall after spending a year retrofitting it for civilian authority use.
MQ-9 Predator Drones Hunt Migrants at the Border was first published by palabra and republished with permission.
Steve Fisher is a Puente News Collaborative correspondent, covering security issues in Mexico.
This article was edited by Steve Padilla, Column One Editor for the Los Angeles Times.
Keep ReadingShow less
As Trump’s second presidency unfolds, rural America—the foundation of his 2024 election win—is feeling the sting. From collapsing export markets to cuts in healthcare and infrastructure, those very voters are losing faith.
Getty Images, ablokhin
Trump’s 2.0 Actions Have Harmed Rural America Who Voted for Him
Oct 14, 2025
Daryl Royal, the 20-year University of Texas football coach, once said, “You've gotta dance with them that brung ya.” The modern adaptation of that quote is “you gotta dance with the one who brought you to the party.” The expression means you should remain loyal to the people or things that helped you succeed.
Sixty-three percent of America’s 3,144 counties are predominantly rural, and Donald Trump won 93 percent of those counties in 2024. Analyses show that rural counties have become increasingly solid Republican, and Trump’s margin of victory within rural America reached a new high in the 2024 election.
We are at the 260th day of Trump’s 2.0 presidency. Polling by ActiVote reveals that Mr. Trump’s approval rating is rapidly declining with rural Americans (Newsweek, Sept. 5).
Let’s explore why these 2024 election supporters are not happy with Trump’s performance to date.
America’s global agriculture market
Historians note that Presidents Franklin D. Roosevelt (Dem.) and Richard Nixon (Rep.) were the backbone to make the U.S. the global agriculture market leader. Evidence is replete that America’s worldwide agribusiness sector prowess has been evaporating at a quick pace since Trump’s Jan. 20 inauguration (Brennan Center for Justice, Aug. 3).
Economic and agricultural harm
The trade wars initiated by Mr. Trump have devastated export markets for American products like soybeans, corn, wheat, sorghum, cotton, pork, dairy, and beef. For example, China, a top buyer of U.S. soybeans, retaliated against Trump by shifting its purchasing to Brazil and Argentina.
In retaliation to Trump’s tariffs, five countries (China, Canada, Mexico, Turkey, and Russia) and the 27-member European Union have imposed their own levies, causing higher prices on equipment, steel and fertilizer needed by farmers (Tax Foundation, Sept. 26). The trade retaliation will continue to harm small and medium-sized family farms and is already trickling down to all of America.
Trump’s heightened immigration enforcement has led to raids on farms and processing plants, causing severe labor shortages in the agricultural labor sector. It’s sad that the Trump administration is not aware that of the 2.4 million farm workers nationwide, about 1.2 million are undocumented, who help plant, tend, harvest, pack, sort, and prepare food-related products Americans depend upon (CBS News and https://farmonaut.com).
USDA’s faux pas
Withholding USDA funding has created severe financial, operational, and rural community impacts, forcing many farmers into economic distress, threatening farm viability, and damaging rural economies (NRDC, Sept. 10).
USDA payment freezes and staffing cuts have stalled irrigation and rural housing projects, which have extended hardship beyond the farm into rural-based communities.
When the USDA reneged on signed contracts, most farmers lost their trust in USDA partnerships and government commitments (ibid).
Rural health and safety
The Trump 2.0 administration’s cuts to rural health and telehealth programs have put healthcare access at risk for the 64 million people who live in the nation's rural areas.
Trump’s effort to repeal or weaken the Affordable Care Act will disproportionately cause rural Americans—who rely heavily on Medicaid or individual markets—to lose insurance.
Budget reductions of opioid and substance abuse response programs—an acute problem in rural America—will have a devastating impact.
Erosion of community infrastructure
Mr. Trump’s reduced support for clean water infrastructure will directly affect rural public health. Similarly, reducing investments in rural broadband will put rural America further behind its urban and suburban peers.
Trump has imposed less funding for rural roads, bridges, and transit, which will impede economic growth and public safety.
Rural households—who spend around 40 percent more on utilities as a share of their income—will face greater hardship as a result of the Trump administration eliminating not only the low-income home energy assistance program but by reducing the weatherization assistance program.
Social safety nets
President Trump’s cuts to the SNAP program will dramatically make it worse for 9.8 million rural-based school children, as their food insecurity rates are the highest in America (Feeding America, May 14).
These examples collectively illustrate how Trump’s 2.0 actions—in only 260 days—have directly worsened living conditions in rural America by reducing access to essential services, increasing financial insecurity, declining healthcare, eroding community infrastructure, and increasing food insecurity for 9.8 million school children.
Trump’s actions are a slap in the face to about two-thirds of Americans who reside in a rural county, where 93 percent of them danced with him in the 2024 election. More broadly, Trump’s actions affect all Americans, as everyone depends on ag products to exist.
This begs the question: when will our 535 Congressional delegates – regardless of their political persuasion – wake up to the economic mess Donald Trump and his cabinet acolytes have created and take action to save America from further domestic and international ruin? Without Congressional intervention, the next 1,200 days of Trump 2.0 are going to be quite cloudy and murky.
Keep ReadingShow less
white concrete dome museum
Photo by Louis Velazquez on Unsplash
Hands Off Our Elections: States and Congress, Not Presidents, Set the Rules
Oct 14, 2025
Trust in elections is fragile – and once lost, it is extraordinarily difficult to rebuild. While Democrats and Republicans disagree on many election policies, there is broad bipartisan agreement on one point: executive branch interference in elections undermines the constitutional authority of states and Congress to determine how elections are run.
Recent executive branch actions threaten to upend this constitutional balance, and Congress must act before it’s too late. To be clear – this is not just about the current president. Keeping the executive branch out of elections is a crucial safeguard against power grabs by any future president, Democrat or Republican.
The Constitution is clear: Congress and states make the rules for federal elections, not presidents. Article 1, Section 4, the “Elections Clause,” gives states primary responsibility for administering elections and Congress the authority to “make or alter” those rules. The framers intentionally excluded the executive branch from this power, because they knew the grave risks of letting the president decide the rules of the game. Their foresight has protected our republic from the kinds of authoritarian power grabs that have undermined democracies around the world.
That safeguard is now being tested.
In March 2025, President Trump issued a sweeping executive order directing federal agencies and state and local election officials to make extensive changes to election rules, including those governing voting equipment, voter registration, mail-in voting, and federal government access to data. The Department of Justice has also pressured states to turn over sensitive voter information and grant access to election systems. Most recently, the president has threatened a second executive order that would, among other things, eliminate mail-in voting and ban “voting machines” altogether.
Trump isn’t the first president to test the boundaries of the Elections Clause. Republicans criticized former President Biden’s 2021 executive order that directed federal agencies to facilitate voter registration and voter education in accordance with the National Voter Registration Act. Without congressional guardrails, future presidents of either party will be tempted to go even further.
Elections run best when states are in charge. State officials are accountable directly to voters, communities, and legislatures – not to whoever controls the White House. Executive branch interference undermines that accountability, creates confusion for voters and candidates, and can place nearly impossible burdens and unfunded mandates on state and local election officials.
The consequences go beyond public trust. If presidents can unilaterally tilt the rules to favor themselves, the fairness of elections collapses – and so does confidence in democracy itself.
If Congress fails to defend its constitutional role, presidents of both parties will continue to push the limits. There is a straight-forward solution to this. Issue One’s We the People Playbook calls for Congress to pass legislation that: (1) reaffirms Congress’ exclusive authority over federal election rules; and (2) nullifies unilateral executive orders that attempt to change how elections are run.
Voters agree. A recent Issue One and YouGov poll found that a majority (51%) oppose presidents changing how states run elections by executive order, with only 35% supporting it.
The Constitution created checks and balances for a reason: to prevent any one branch – or any one person – from controlling the machinery of democracy. To safeguard elections in 2026 and beyond, Congress must reclaim its constitutional authority now, before this or any future president pushes the boundaries further.
Voters have an important role to play as well. They should demand that their representatives defend and protect the Elections Clause, resist executive overreach, no matter which party holds the White House, and keep authority over elections where it belongs: with the states and Congress. Because America’s democracy works best when no president — Republican or Democrat — can rewrite the rules of the game.
Michael McNulty is Policy Director at Issue One, advancing bipartisan policy solutions by providing expert analysis, building strategic relationships, and supporting advocacy and legislative efforts through research and policy development. McNulty previously served as a senior elections advisor in the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), where he led the development of tools to support democratic elections, spearheaded global democracy initiatives, and shaped election-related programs and policy responses across Africa, Asia, Eastern Europe, Eurasia, and Latin America.
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More