Health
Salmonella Outbreak Tied to Jalapeños Sickens 431 Across 32 States, Chipotle and QDOBA Affected
The CDC is investigating a multistate Salmonella outbreak linked to contaminated jalapeño peppers that has sickened at least 431 people across 32 states, with dozens of illness clusters traced back to Chipotle Mexican Grill and QDOBA locations. The outbreak involves a strain known as Salmonella Javiana. As of August 19, the CDC had confirmed 57 hospitalizations — about 15% of patients for whom information was available — and no deaths. Illness onset dates range from June 19 through August 2, though the agency cautioned that “the true number of sick people in this outbreak is likely much higher than the number reported,” since many people recover without seeking medical care or being tested. Investigators traced the contamination to jalapeño peppers grown in Sinaloa, Mexico and distributed in the U.S. by Coast Citrus Distributors. Of 224 people interviewed by health officials, 203 — 91% — reported eating at a Mexican-style restaurant before falling ill, and the CDC identified 28 separate illness clusters tied to Chipotle and QDOBA locations across eight states. Multiple recalls have followed the investigation. Coast Citrus Distributors recalled the affected jalapeños, Taylor Fresh Foods issued its own recall of jalapeño peppers on August 8, and Whole Foods Market recalled jalapeño pepper-containing products on August 12. Additional recalls have since been issued for meat and poultry products that contained the recalled peppers as an ingredient. Both Chipotle and QDOBA stopped serving the affected peppers once they were notified by health officials. The CDC is urging consumers to check whether any jalapeños in their homes or purchased from affected retailers match the recalled lots, and “not eat, sell, or serve” them if so. People who develop diarrhea, fever or stomach cramps after eating jalapeños from the affected supply chain are advised to contact a healthcare provider, particularly if symptoms are severe or persistent. Most healthy adults recover from Salmonella infection within four to seven days without treatment, though the illness can be more serious for young children, older adults and people with weakened immune systems. The investigation remains active, and the CDC said the case count is likely to rise as additional states report illnesses and more product testing is completed.
Trump Taps Pro-Life Physician Heidi Overton to Lead FDA, Setting Up Fight Over Abortion Pill Policy
President Trump announced this week that he is nominating Dr. Heidi Overton, a physician and White House domestic policy aide, to serve as the next commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration — a pick that instantly reignited the long-running national fight over access to the abortion drug mifepristone and drew sharp opposition from Democratic senators before her confirmation process has even begun. Who Is Heidi Overton Overton currently serves as a deputy assistant to the president for domestic policy, a role in which The Atlantic has described her as one of the most influential public health officials in Trump’s second term, regularly briefing the president directly on health matters. Before joining the White House, she served as vice chair and chief policy officer at the America First Policy Institute, a conservative think tank closely aligned with the administration’s broader agenda. If confirmed by the Senate, she would replace Dr. Marty Makary, who resigned from the position in May following friction with the White House over issues including vaping regulation and abortion pill access. Trump’s Case for Her Announcing the pick on Truth Social, Trump was effusive in his praise, calling Overton a “rockstar” who is “smart and respected by all” and describing her as central to what he called the most transformative health agenda in American history. “She is known to take on the hardest issues, and bring me solutions that work best for the country,” Trump wrote, adding that Overton would work closely with Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Dr. Mehmet Oz to advance his priorities, including faster drug approvals — a goal the pharmaceutical industry has long pushed for — and continued progress on Kennedy’s “Make America Healthy Again” agenda. A Long, Public Record on Abortion Overton’s nomination has drawn intense attention primarily because of her extensive public record opposing abortion. After the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision overturning Roe v. Wade, Overton celebrated the ruling as a “huge victory for life,” saying it would “allow Americans to reevaluate the value of the potential of every baby in the womb and choose life through a democratic process.” She has separately advocated for Congress to place strict limits on mifepristone and misoprostol, the two drugs most commonly used in medication abortions, arguing such restrictions are necessary “to protect women and children.” That record matters significantly for the position she’s been nominated to fill: the FDA is currently in the midst of an ongoing safety review of mifepristone, a drug first approved by the agency in 2000 and later authorized for mail-order dispensing under a Biden-era policy. Whoever leads the FDA will have substantial influence over how — and whether — that review affects the drug’s availability nationwide. Democrats Signal Fierce Opposition Senate Democrats wasted no time announcing their opposition. Sen. Patty Murray of Washington, a member of the committee that will consider Overton’s nomination, didn’t mince words. “Heidi Overton is a far-right, anti-abortion extremist who has no business leading the FDA,” Murray said in a statement. “The American people deserve someone who will put science and facts FIRST, not another Trump sycophant who will make it their mission to attack medication abortion. I will vote NO.” Reproductive rights organizations echoed that opposition. Mini Timmaraju, president and CEO of Reproductive Freedom for All, argued the nomination reflects a broader strategy by the administration. “Donald Trump is trying to put an anti-abortion extremist in charge of any agency that could seriously undermine reproductive healthcare — including the agency that could roll back access to mifepristone nationwide,” Timmaraju said, adding that Overton’s nomination represents “another alarming step in Trump’s plan to weaponize every part of the federal government to restrict abortion nationwide.” Even Some Republicans Have Concerns Notably, opposition to the pick hasn’t been confined strictly to Democrats. Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, the Republican chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee that will oversee Overton’s confirmation hearing, raised his own reservations — though his concerns centered on managerial experience rather than her policy positions. “While I respect Dr. Overton’s experience as a physician, I have strong concerns about her nomination to be FDA commissioner,” Cassidy wrote on X. “Her lack of managerial experience does not prepare her well for leading a large organization that is already struggling with turnover and low morale.” A Balancing Act Ahead Whoever ultimately leads the FDA under the current administration faces competing pressures that have already proven difficult to navigate. Kennedy has pushed the agency toward looser restrictions on certain unproven peptide treatments, anti-abortion lawmakers and advocacy groups are pressing hard for tighter restrictions on mifepristone, and Trump himself has pushed the agency to approve flavored e-cigarette products for the first time — a move public health advocates worry could fuel renewed teenage vaping. Overton’s predecessor, Makary, ultimately resigned amid friction generated by exactly this kind of competing pressure, leaving several major policy questions — including the future of ultraprocessed food regulation, antidepressant labeling, and COVID-19 vaccine guidance — unresolved when he departed in May. Supporters See a Needed Course Correction Backers of the nomination argue that after a series of FDA leaders who drew criticism from anti-abortion advocates and industry alike for insufficient decisiveness, Overton represents a clear, values-aligned choice who will finally give the administration’s health priorities a fully committed advocate at the top of the agency. From this perspective, her extensive policy background and closeness to the White House’s broader health agenda — rather than being liabilities — position her to implement reforms more effectively than a commissioner operating at arm’s length from the administration’s core priorities. What Happens Next Overton’s nomination will need to clear the Senate HELP Committee, where Republicans hold a narrow one-seat majority, before advancing to a full Senate floor vote. Given both the unified Democratic opposition already on display and Cassidy’s own stated reservations as the committee’s Republican chairman, her path to confirmation — while still likely given the overall Republican Senate majority — is not guaranteed to be smooth. A confirmation…
Pet Owners Are Quietly Stacking This $67 Perk On Top Of Their Insurance
If you’ve got a pet, you already know the drill: insurance handles the big stuff — surgeries, accidents, the scary emergency vet visits at 2 a.m. But nobody warns you about the in-between costs. The $180 dental cleaning. The $60 flea medication refill. The 11 p.m. “is this normal or should I panic” moment when the vet’s office is closed and Google is not helping. That’s the gap a membership called PetSavingsIQ was built to fill. It’s not pet insurance — it works alongside whatever coverage you already have — and right now it’s running at $67 for the full year, down from $83.88 (about $5.58 a month). We dug into what’s actually included, and a few of these perks are the kind of thing you don’t realize you need until the exact moment you desperately do. The short version: vet discounts, cheaper prescriptions, a 24/7 pet help line, and a smarter lost-pet tag — all for less than the cost of one routine office visit. Here’s the full breakdown… 1. Vet Discounts — worth checking before your next appointment Members get access to savings at thousands of participating veterinarians nationwide, with reported savings of up to 25% off nose-to-tail checkups, dental visits, and bigger-ticket procedures — no claims paperwork, no waiting on reimbursement. You just show your membership and the discount applies at the register. 2. Rx Valet for Pets — a good one to check before your next refill Pet meds are a silent budget killer, especially for anything chronic — allergies, thyroid issues, joint supplements. Members can save up to 50% on prescriptions across a network of more than 67,000 pharmacies, and choose to pick up locally or ship straight to the door. 3. 24/7 Pet Help Line — the one nobody expects to use this much An on-demand tele-health line staffed by pet health specialists, available any time, for any of your pets, with no extra per-call fees. Late-night “should I be worried about this” moments are exactly what it’s for — and it can save an unnecessary trip to the emergency vet. 4. Lost Pet Recovery — set it up the day the tag arrives A metal tag with one phone number is a dead end if that one person doesn’t answer. This QR-code ID tag links to a secure profile with multiple emergency contacts, so anyone who finds your pet can reach your whole circle at once. Setup takes about two minutes: order the tag, load contacts into the app, clip it on the collar. 5. Pet Perks — a nice bonus if you’re already a toy-and-treat household Membership also unlocks discounts, free shipping, and offers from pet brands you’re likely already shopping — plus a doubled first BarkBox delivery with any multi-month subscription. Smaller than the health-side perks, but it adds up fast. Why this isn’t a replacement for insurance — and why that’s the point PetSavingsIQ is upfront that it’s designed to work alongside your existing pet insurance, not instead of it. Insurance is built for the big, unpredictable stuff. This membership is built for the frequent, predictable stuff — the discounted checkups, the cheaper prescriptions, the after-hours question you didn’t want to Google. Layered together, it’s a more complete picture of coverage than either one alone. Your pet deserves the best. So does your wallet. Between vet discounts, cheaper prescriptions, a 24/7 help line, and a smarter lost-pet system, this is one of those memberships where the math works out after a single vet visit.
Trump Signs Order Trimming Childhood Vaccine Schedule, Says It’s Time to “Bring It Back” to How Things Used to Be
President Trump signed an executive order Monday directing the federal government to scale back the number of vaccines universally recommended for American children, splitting the combined measles-mumps-rubella shot into three separate doses and reducing the list of diseases every child is advised to be vaccinated against from 18 down to 11 — the latest and most sweeping move yet in a yearslong push by the president and Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to overhaul how the country approaches childhood immunization. What the Order Actually Does Signed in the Oval Office with Kennedy, NIH Director Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, and White House domestic policy deputy Dr. Heidi Overton standing alongside him, the order calls for reducing the number of vaccines universally recommended for the youngest children from 17 to 11. Rather than eliminating the remaining shots — including those for RSV and hepatitis A and B — the order reclassifies them as recommended specifically for children considered higher-risk, or subject to what officials are calling “shared clinical decision-making” between a child’s parents and their doctor, rather than a blanket, one-size-fits-all recommendation. The order also specifically targets the MMR shot, currently administered as a single combined vaccine against measles, mumps, and rubella. Under the new guidance, the administration is recommending the three diseases be inoculated against separately, in individual shots given at separate doctor visits spread out over time, rather than combined into one dose. Notably, the order stops short of touching two of the most well-established childhood vaccines: the White House confirmed it continues to recommend the measles and polio vaccines specifically, even as it pulls back on the broader universal schedule elsewhere. Trump’s Own Framing Trump was direct in linking the changes to his long-stated views on autism, telling reporters in the Oval Office that reducing the number of childhood shots is meant to reverse what he characterizes as a modern epidemic. “Decades ago, children received only a small fraction of the vaccines required today,” Trump said. “In those times, people were much healthier and, of course, the high rates of autism now observed did not exist. So, there’s a reason for such epidemic rates of autism. And we’re going to bring it back to much closer to where it was.” He added that under the prior schedule, “we were requiring 72 jabs for our beautiful, healthy, lovely, delicate little children” — a figure he used repeatedly to underscore his case for scaling things back. The order also directs the Department of Justice to investigate whether individual states are complying with existing exemptions to childhood vaccine mandates, specifically citing parental authority, disability accommodations, religious objections, and medical exemptions as protections the administration wants more rigorously enforced nationwide. Framed Around Parental Choice, Not Restricting Access White House officials have been careful to frame the changes as expanding options rather than limiting them. A White House official told reporters the changes are meant to help parents who have questions about vaccine requirements, “especially post-COVID,” and to open up dialogue aimed at rebuilding public trust in the health system. Kennedy echoed that framing directly, saying the changes are meant to give parents choices rather than restrict access, and administration officials emphasized that the proposed changes would not prohibit access to any vaccine or limit insurance coverage for families who still want their children to receive the full existing schedule. Building on an Earlier Order — And Facing the Same Legal Roadblocks Monday’s action builds directly on Executive Order 14407, signed back in May, which committed the federal government to aligning the U.S. childhood vaccine schedule with what the administration calls “best practices” from peer developed nations. Administration officials have specifically pointed to Denmark as a model, noting that vaccines for flu, COVID, RSV, and chickenpox aren’t part of that country’s universal childhood schedule. That comparison isn’t universally accepted, however. Many public health researchers argue Denmark’s approach reflects a fundamentally different set of circumstances — including a universal healthcare system and a smaller, more homogeneous population — that don’t necessarily translate to a country as large and diverse as the United States, which faces a different underlying burden of infectious disease. The push has also already run into legal trouble. A related effort by the CDC to change the vaccine schedule back in January was blocked by a federal judge, and NPR reports Monday’s order is likely to face similar legal challenges. That history is part of why the administration appears to be pursuing the changes through an executive order this time, alongside continued efforts within the CDC and HHS. A Politically Risky Move, Even Within the Administration Notably, CNN reporting indicates the timing of Monday’s order came despite long-running reservations among some of Trump’s own political advisers, who have argued that pushing controversial vaccine policy is broadly unpopular with the electorate and risks alienating voters ahead of November’s competitive midterm elections. Earlier this year, some White House officials reportedly urged Kennedy to shift his public focus toward more mainstream health initiatives specifically because of concerns about the political fallout from his vaccine-related work — guidance that continued in the background even as Monday’s order moved forward regardless. The Medical Community’s Response The medical and public health community has pushed back forcefully. Physician groups have pointed to what they describe as decades of consistent scientific research affirming both the safety and effectiveness of the existing childhood vaccine schedule, and argue that repeated extensive studies have found no evidence connecting vaccines to autism — a claim the president has continued to make publicly despite that body of research. Critics characterize the pattern as part of a broader effort by the administration to reshape vaccine guidance through executive and political channels rather than through the traditional, transparent scientific review process that has historically guided U.S. immunization policy. Where Things Go From Here Supporters of the administration’s approach argue that giving parents more granular choice and shifting some vaccines to a risk-based rather than universal recommendation reflects a reasonable, modernized approach to children’s health — one…
Hegseth’s “High-T” Initiative Puts Military Readiness — and a Contested Hormone Therapy — Under the Microscope
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s decision to launch annual testosterone screening for service members has kept the Pentagon in the headlines for weeks, and as troops begin rolling into the new program, the underlying medical question at its center — who actually needs testosterone therapy, and does it genuinely improve military readiness — is drawing fresh scrutiny from doctors and researchers even as the administration frames it as a straightforward readiness upgrade. What the Policy Actually Does Hegseth announced the initiative, dubbed informally the “High-T Department of War,” in a video posted to social media, framing it as essential to maintaining what he called troops’ “biological foundation” for combat readiness. Under the program, service members age 30 and older will be screened annually for testosterone deficiency as part of their existing periodic health assessment, while troops younger than 30 will have the option to request testing voluntarily. Any resulting treatment — specifically testosterone replacement therapy, or TRT — will remain entirely voluntary regardless of a service member’s test results. “While we invest heavily in our weapon systems, platforms and gear, our most decisive tactical advantage will always be the individual warfighter,” Hegseth said, framing the screening as an extension of the department’s broader focus on optimizing service members’ physical readiness. “We have a sacred duty to maintain that advantage, which is why we must constantly look for new ways to optimize your performance, your resilience and your long-term health.” The Case Supporters Make Backers of the initiative argue it reflects legitimate, if underappreciated, medical science. Testosterone levels decline naturally in men starting in their 30s and 40s, and researchers have documented specific ways military service itself can accelerate that decline. Army Major Theodore Crisostomo-Wynne, a urologist at Madigan Army Medical Center speaking in a personal capacity at a 2025 FDA panel, explained that the intense physical and psychological demands placed on service members can measurably lower testosterone, sometimes temporarily and sometimes over the long term. He noted particular concern within the special operations community, where researchers have identified a cluster of symptoms they’ve begun referring to as “Operator Syndrome” — a pattern of hormonal and related health disruptions tied to the extreme demands of that role. Then-FDA Commissioner Marty Makary cited a 2007 study during that same panel indicating that roughly 5.6% of men aged 30 to 79 have both low testosterone and associated symptoms, including depression and decreased strength — numbers proponents argue justify routine, low-cost screening rather than leaving a meaningful subset of the force to go undiagnosed. From this vantage point, identifying and voluntarily treating a real, documented medical condition among service members is simply good, proactive military medicine, not unlike routine screening for other treatable conditions that could otherwise degrade a service member’s health or performance over time. Where the Skepticism Comes In Not everyone in the medical and public health community is convinced the policy, as designed, will accomplish what it claims. Some researchers and outlets covering the announcement have noted that Hegseth’s messaging blends genuinely established science about testosterone’s role in male physiology with broader claims about its performance benefits that are less rigorously substantiated in the medical literature — particularly claims implying that boosting testosterone in men without a clinically diagnosed deficiency would meaningfully improve combat performance. There’s also a notable regulatory wrinkle underlying the whole program: the FDA’s approval for testosterone replacement therapy is specifically limited to men with a diagnosed medical condition affecting natural hormone production, not simply age-related decline or a desire for enhanced performance. How the military’s screening and treatment protocol will square with that narrower approved use — and whether it risks blurring the line between treating a legitimate deficiency and pursuing performance enhancement — remains an open question that outside researchers have pressed the Pentagon on directly. Hegseth has pushed back on that characterization preemptively, stating the initiative is “not about artificial enhancement.” Even so, the Pentagon has not detailed what specific research or academic studies underpin the policy’s design, according to reporting from multiple outlets that sought clarification from the department. Unanswered Operational Questions Beyond the medical debate, a number of practical and administrative questions about the rollout remain unresolved. The Defense Department has not specified when screening will formally begin, what the added testing will cost, or how implementation will be phased in across the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and Space Force. It’s similarly unclear how a positive deficiency result will be documented, who within the chain of command or medical system will have access to that information, and whether a diagnosis could have any bearing on a service member’s assignments, deployability, or career trajectory going forward — questions that matter significantly to troops even if participation in resulting treatment is technically voluntary. The Pentagon has also declined to say whether the initiative extends to female service members in any comparable form. When asked directly whether women in uniform would receive annual hormone screenings and be offered access to therapies addressing their own hormonal changes — for instance, screening related to perimenopause — the department did not provide additional detail, instead referring back to Hegseth’s original video announcement. That silence has drawn its own share of questions about whether the initiative, despite gender-neutral language about “warfighters,” is designed with only male service members in mind. Part of a Broader Administration Push The military’s new screening program doesn’t exist in isolation. It reflects a broader effort within the current administration to expand public access to and awareness of testosterone replacement therapy more generally, with officials at the Department of Health and Human Services under Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. having separately floated proposals aimed at easing access to the treatment for men outside the military as well. Supporters see this as a coherent, deliberate effort to modernize how the health system approaches a widely under-discussed aspect of men’s health; critics see a policy area where enthusiasm may be outpacing the strength of the underlying clinical consensus. What to Watch Going Forward As the program…
FDA Approves First-Ever mRNA Flu Vaccine After Reversing Its Own Earlier Rejection
The FDA approved Moderna’s mRNA-based flu vaccine this week, clearing the way for the first influenza shot built on the same technology used in COVID-19 vaccines — a regulatory turnaround that seemed unlikely just six months ago, after the agency initially refused to even review the product. What Got Approved The vaccine, branded mFlusiva, received standard FDA approval for adults ages 50 to 64 and accelerated approval for adults 65 and older, with the latter approval contingent on Moderna completing an additional postmarketing study to confirm clinical benefit in that higher-risk age group. In a late-stage clinical trial involving more than 40,000 participants, mFlusiva demonstrated roughly 27% greater effectiveness against influenza-like illness compared to a standard-dose flu vaccine — a meaningful edge for a population that faces disproportionately severe complications, including pneumonia, from seasonal flu. Moderna CEO Stéphane Bancel called the approval a milestone for the company’s broader platform. “Flu remains a significant public health challenge, and mFLUSIVA provides an important new option for America’s seniors,” Bancel said in a statement, adding that the approval “reflects the ongoing potential of our mRNA platform to help address important public health challenges through continued scientific innovation.” A Bumpy Road to Approval The path here wasn’t straightforward. Back in February, then-FDA biologics chief Vinay Prasad issued a rare “refusal-to-file” notice, overturning career staff’s recommendation and declining to even review the vaccine based on the data package Moderna had submitted — a decision some observers speculated may have been influenced by broader skepticism toward mRNA technology within the administration. Just two weeks later, after Moderna publicly disclosed both the rejection and its own frustration with the decision, the FDA reversed course and agreed to move forward with a review in time for the 2026-2027 flu season. Prasad left the FDA at the end of April. Once under formal review, the vaccine’s data made a strong impression: the FDA’s outside advisory panel, the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee, voted unanimously in June to recommend approval. One panelist, Dr. Flor Munoz-Rivas of Baylor College of Medicine, praised the rigor of the underlying research. “The studies that were presented today were very well conducted,” she said. “They have very clear results that are very robust.” An Unusual Recommendation Landscape Vaccines are typically formally endorsed by the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices before widespread use and insurance coverage kick in — but that panel has been unable to meet due to an ongoing federal court dispute over its composition and authority. Absent a green light from that committee, the vaccine can still legally be prescribed, but how quickly it gets folded into standard recommendations, and whether insurers move to cover it without that formal endorsement, remains an open question that could shape how widely it’s actually used this fall. The Bigger Picture for mRNA Technology Supporters of the technology argue this approval matters well beyond flu season alone. Because mRNA vaccines can be manufactured and updated far more quickly than traditional egg-based flu vaccines, proponents say the platform gives the country a meaningful head start in responding to fast-mutating flu strains or, in a worst-case scenario, a future pandemic strain — since formulations can be adjusted on a compressed timeline compared to conventional manufacturing. The approval also arrives at a moment when mRNA vaccine technology has faced real skepticism in Washington, with the administration’s broader health leadership having voiced public doubts about the platform in the past. That the FDA ultimately reversed its own initial rejection, following unanimous support from an independent scientific advisory panel, suggests the agency’s career scientific review process held up even amid political headwinds — a point advocates for regulatory independence are likely to highlight going forward. No new or unexpected safety signals emerged during the review; reported side effects, including fatigue, joint pain, and injection-site discomfort, were consistent with what’s typically seen with other mRNA vaccines already on the market. Moderna says it expects mFlusiva to begin reaching select retailers within a few weeks, ahead of the upcoming flu season, with regulatory reviews also underway in the European Union, Canada, and Australia. This story is developing.
Senate Confirms Dr. Erica Schwartz as CDC Director, Ending Yearlong Leadership Vacuum
The Senate voted Wednesday to confirm Dr. Erica Schwartz as director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, giving the nation’s top public health agency its first permanent leader in nearly a year and closing out a turbulent stretch that saw two previous picks fail to make it through the confirmation process or survive on the job. A Steady Hand After a Rocky Stretch Schwartz was confirmed on a largely party-line 51-44 vote, with Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., the lone Democrat crossing over to support her. She becomes the 22nd director in the CDC’s history and the first Senate-confirmed leader of the agency in roughly a year, taking over from Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, who had been serving as acting director since February while also leading the National Institutes of Health. Her path to the job was notably smoother than her two predecessors. The administration’s first pick, former Rep. Dave Weldon, R-Fla., withdrew his own nomination after it became clear he lacked the votes, largely over concerns about his vaccine skepticism. His successor, Susan Monarez, was confirmed but fired less than a month later after what she described as a clash with HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. over his push to roll back childhood vaccine recommendations. A Resume Built on Public Health Experience Schwartz brings a substantial public health and military background to the role. A Brown University-trained physician, she served as deputy surgeon general during Trump’s first term and previously served as chief medical officer for the U.S. Coast Guard, in addition to time in the Navy and the Public Health Service Commissioned Corps. At 54, she also becomes the first Black woman to lead the CDC. President Trump nominated her in April, calling her “incredibly talented.” Notably, Schwartz represents something of a departure from earlier contenders the administration considered, who more closely toed the “Make America Healthy Again” line associated with Kennedy’s tenure at HHS. Her lengthy record overseeing vaccination programs and public health crisis response stands in contrast to the more skeptical posture that sank Weldon’s nomination. Questions About Independence Schwartz’s confirmation hearing last month put her in a difficult spot: reassuring senators that she’d bring scientific rigor to the job without appearing to publicly break with Kennedy, her eventual boss. She told the Senate HELP Committee she accepts there is “overwhelming evidence” that vaccines don’t cause autism, but stopped short of committing to remove a CDC webpage — updated last November — that critics say downplays that evidence. When Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., the committee’s chairman, pressed her on whether she’d challenge Kennedy directly, she described handling disagreements the way she had in the military — through private conversations with superiors rather than public confrontation. That answer didn’t satisfy everyone. Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., the committee’s ranking member, voted against her both in committee and on the floor, saying he was impressed by her credentials but didn’t believe she was prepared to stand up to what he characterized as false statements on vaccines coming from Kennedy’s HHS. “I think the American people are owed better than what President Trump has nominated,” Sanders said. Others in the public health community took a more measured view of her approach. Dr. Georges Benjamin, CEO of the American Public Health Association, suggested her measured public posture during confirmation was a pragmatic choice rather than a red flag. “Public health people in these positions often have to manage through influence,” Benjamin said. “You don’t get influence by disagreeing with your boss publicly before you even get the job.” The Challenges Waiting for Her Schwartz inherits an agency that has been significantly reshaped over the past year and a half. The CDC has lost more than a quarter of its workforce through layoffs and resignations amid broader restructuring at HHS, and morale has reportedly suffered as a result. She also takes over amid two active public health challenges: the nation’s worst measles outbreak since before elimination was declared in 2000, and a growing cyclosporiasis outbreak that has already been linked to at least two deaths in Michigan. Benjamin, among others, argues the agency’s credibility has taken a real hit during the period of acting leadership and restructuring. “The CDC’s influence has diminished dramatically since they’ve taken over,” he said. “You have to second-guess and verify what is said. We never had to do that before.” Supporters of the administration’s broader health agenda counter that a leaner, more accountable CDC — one less resistant to oversight from elected officials — is a feature of the reform effort, not a flaw, and that Schwartz’s credentials make her well-positioned to restore both competence and public trust to the role regardless of the political noise surrounding her confirmation. What’s Next Schwartz is expected to be sworn in within the next several days. Her first major tests will likely come quickly, given the ongoing measles situation and the upcoming August meeting of the newly reconstituted U.S. Preventive Services Task Force — both flashpoints that will offer an early read on how independently she’s able to operate within Kennedy’s HHS. This story is developing.
US Measles Cases Hit 30-Year High, But CDC Official Says Losing Elimination Status “Not Really” a Concern
The United States has recorded more measles cases in 2026 than in any full year since the disease was declared eliminated in 2000, putting the country’s quarter-century-old elimination status at real risk — but a top CDC official says the milestone, if it happens, isn’t the alarming development some public health voices are making it out to be. The Numbers Behind the Headlines As of July 30, the CDC had confirmed 2,371 measles cases nationwide in 2026, already surpassing the 2,289 cases recorded for all of 2025 — itself the highest annual total since 1991. The case count spans 37 separate outbreaks so far this year, with active clusters currently being tracked in states including Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Utah. Johns Hopkins researcher William Moss noted that hitting this milestone so early in the year, with five months still remaining, is a particularly striking sign of how persistent this year’s spread has been. The largest single outbreak of the year unfolded in South Carolina’s Spartanburg County, which saw the biggest measles outbreak the U.S. has experienced in decades before state health officials declared it over in late April, with just under 1,000 total cases. Utah has since emerged as the new center of concern, with more than 500 confirmed cases so far in 2026 alone. What “Elimination Status” Actually Means Measles elimination doesn’t mean the disease has vanished from American soil entirely — it’s a technical designation meaning the virus hasn’t achieved continuous, uninterrupted domestic transmission for more than 12 months. The U.S. earned that status in 2000 after decades of successful vaccination campaigns nearly wiped the virus out. If health officials determine that this year’s outbreaks are genetically and epidemiologically linked to a chain of transmission stretching back more than a year — potentially connecting back to an outbreak that began in West Texas in January 2025 — the country could officially lose the designation for the first time in a generation. That determination isn’t made by the CDC alone. An external panel called the Measles, Rubella, and Congenital Rubella Syndrome Elimination Regional Verification Commission, operating under the Pan American Health Organization, is responsible for the final call, relying in part on genetic sequencing data that CDC scientists are still working to compile and publish. A CDC Official Pushes Back on the Alarm Not everyone in the federal health apparatus is treating the potential loss of elimination status as a five-alarm fire. CDC Principal Deputy Director Dr. Ralph Abraham, a former Louisiana surgeon general who previously scaled back vaccine promotion efforts in that state, told reporters at a briefing that losing the designation wouldn’t fundamentally change how the country handles the disease. “Losing elimination status … does not mean that the measles would be widespread, nor would it alter any key measles elimination strategies,” Abraham said, while adding that he continues to personally support vaccination as the most effective tool against the disease — even as he also emphasized the importance of personal freedom in health decisions. Abraham also pushed back on claims that ongoing outbreaks in different states are necessarily connected, arguing that continuous transmission between the various clusters “has not been proved” and shouldn’t be assumed just because outbreaks are occurring simultaneously in multiple regions. The Vaccination Rate Debate Public health researchers point to declining childhood MMR vaccination rates as the central driver behind the resurgence. National kindergarten MMR coverage has slipped to around 92.5%, below the roughly 95% threshold considered necessary to maintain herd immunity against a virus as contagious as measles — the CDC estimates that if one infected person is in a room with unprotected people, up to nine out of ten will catch it. The vast majority of this year’s cases, more than 95%, have occurred in people who were unvaccinated or whose vaccination status was unknown. Some researchers argue the stakes of continued vaccination decline are significant: one estimate suggests that just a single percentage-point drop in the childhood MMR vaccination rate could translate into roughly 17,000 additional measles cases, 4,000 hospitalizations, and 36 preventable deaths nationally each year. Three deaths and 243 hospitalizations were attributed to last year’s outbreaks alone, with about a quarter of 2025’s cases occurring in children under five. Personal Choice Versus Public Health The debate over how aggressively to respond has become something of a proxy fight in the broader national conversation about vaccine mandates, parental rights, and the proper role of government in personal health decisions — a conversation Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has placed at the center of his tenure leading the department. Supporters of the administration’s more hands-off approach argue that decisions about vaccination ultimately belong to individual families, not federal health bureaucrats, and that framing a technical elimination-status change as a public health emergency risks stoking unnecessary panic over a disease that, while serious, remains treatable and preventable for those who choose vaccination. Critics, including some public health researchers, counter that measles’ extraordinary contagiousness means individual choices carry real consequences for the broader community, particularly for infants too young to be vaccinated and people with compromised immune systems who can’t be vaccinated even if they wanted to be. Dr. Dave Chokshi, chair of the Common Health Coalition, framed it directly: “Vaccination is one of the most powerful investments we can make for the health of our children, but when we fail to maintain high vaccination rates, we all pay the price.” The International Backdrop The U.S. wouldn’t be alone if it loses its elimination status. Canada lost its own measles-free designation in late 2025, and the United Kingdom and several other European countries have also lost their elimination status in recent years amid similar declines in vaccination coverage — suggesting the trend driving America’s numbers is part of a broader pattern playing out across the developed world, rather than an isolated domestic failure. What Happens Next CDC scientists continue working with state and international partners to complete the genetic sequencing analysis that will ultimately determine whether this year’s…
Kennedy Set to Overhaul Influential Panel That Decides Free Cancer Screenings for Millions
HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is preparing to name as many as eight new members to the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, the influential and little-known federal panel that determines which preventive medical services — from mammograms to colonoscopies to cancer screenings — insurers must cover for free, with the newly reshaped panel set to hold its first meeting in 17 months this August. A Long-Overdue Shake-Up, Supporters Say Kennedy has repeatedly criticized the task force’s past performance, describing it at one point as “lackadaisical,” and has moved to remake the panel after blocking it from meeting on multiple occasions, declining to replace members whose terms expired, and removing its vice chairs in May. The task force, normally composed of 16 experts, has shrunk by half in recent months as Kennedy has worked to reconstitute it with new leadership. Notably, the incoming selection process is reportedly favoring specialists over the primary care physicians who have traditionally filled these roles — a departure supporters say could bring fresh, more clinically focused perspectives to a panel that plays an outsized role in American healthcare. What the Panel Actually Does The task force’s recommendations carry real financial weight for patients. Services that receive the panel’s highest grades — “A” or “B” — must be covered by most private insurers and state Medicaid expansion programs without any copays or deductibles. That includes widely used preventive services like mammograms, colonoscopies, and pap tests, meaning changes in the panel’s composition and priorities could eventually ripple out to affect coverage decisions for millions of Americans. Questions About the Process The overhaul hasn’t been without scrutiny. Former task force members have said the process for selecting new members has been less transparent than in years past, and HHS has not detailed publicly why several previously completed recommendations have not yet been released. HHS says the August meeting was delayed due to an unusually high volume of nominations for the open seats, requiring more time to properly vet and onboard the incoming members. Supporters of Kennedy’s approach argue that an independent-in-name-only panel benefits from new energy and accountability, especially given how directly its decisions affect what Americans pay out of pocket for basic preventive care, while critics continue to press for more transparency around how the new members are being chosen and what direction they intend to take the panel in. This story is developing.
RFK Jr. Touts Sweeping HHS Overhaul as MAHA Agenda Reshapes Federal Health Policy
Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is touting a dramatic year-plus of restructuring at the nation’s largest health agency, arguing the changes are long overdue and will finally redirect federal resources toward fighting chronic disease instead of funding bureaucratic bloat. Since taking office in February 2025, Kennedy has overseen workforce reductions, frozen or canceled billions of dollars in research funding, and pushed through a redesign of HHS meant to save $1.8 billion a year by trimming staffing levels back down closer to where they stood before the COVID-19 pandemic. The department is being streamlined from 28 divisions — many of which Kennedy has described as containing redundant units — down to 15, with the total HHS workforce expected to land around 62,000 employees. Making America Healthy Again Kennedy has framed the overhaul as central to his “Make America Healthy Again” mission, telling Congress the department’s goal is to end the “epidemic of chronic illness by focusing on safe, wholesome food, clean water, and the elimination of environmental toxins.” As part of that push, he’s redrawn federal guidance on topics ranging from seed oils to fluoride to over-the-counter medications, moves that have drawn strong praise from MAHA supporters who say they’ve waited years for an HHS secretary willing to challenge entrenched agency thinking. “HHS will carry this momentum into 2026 to strengthen accountability, put patients first, and protect public health,” the department said. Reshaping Key Panels Kennedy has also moved to remake the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, the influential panel that determines which screenings — like mammograms and colonoscopies — insurers must cover without copays. The panel, which Kennedy has criticized as “lackadaisical,” is set to convene in August with as many as eight new members, its first in-person meeting in 17 months after the administration postponed four previous sessions. Not Without Critics Public health researchers have raised concerns about some of the specific policy changes, including a May decision to stop recommending COVID-19 vaccines for healthy children and pregnant women, and have questioned whether canceled research funding could set back scientific progress in other areas. Supporters counter that an agency overseeing trillions in federal health spending is long overdue for the kind of hard look Kennedy is giving it, and that restoring public trust in health institutions requires exactly the kind of disruption he’s brought to Washington. This story is developing.
- 1
- 2