A line in the sand at the CDC
Standing for science over politics, a former CDC director testifies to Congress.
By Jeff Nesbit
Under the glare of congressional hearing lights on Wednesday, Dr. Susan Monarez, the nation’s first Senate-confirmed director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, described a battle not against a virus but for the very soul of her agency.
She wasn’t fired for incompetence or mismanagement, she told the Senate health committee. She was fired for “holding the line on scientific integrity.”
In Congressional testimony earlier this month, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said she was “not trustworthy.” Her defense: If being unable to pre-approve a childhood vaccine schedule that wasn't based on sound, peer-reviewed science made her untrustworthy, then so be it.
This week’s congressional hearing with the former CDC director made crystal clear a chilling reality: This was not a dismissal over trust but the calculated removal of a scientific leader who refused to rubber-stamp a dangerous, politically driven agenda.
The core of Monarez’s testimony definitively revealed a concerted campaign of political pressure. She stated, under oath, that Kennedy demanded she commit in advance to approving all recommendations from his newly ideologically stacked vaccine advisory committee, "regardless of the scientific evidence."
This wasn't a request for collaboration; it was a demand for fealty. Her explosive claim is substantiated by a smoking-gun email from HHS’s chief of staff, Matthew Buckham, and obtained by The Washington Post.
Just a week before her firing, Buckham wrote to Monarez about the “absolute need for political review of major policy decisions at CDC,” a directive that fundamentally subverts the agency’s scientific mission.
This was not an isolated incident. Dr. Debra Houry, the CDC’s former chief medical officer who resigned in protest alongside other senior leaders, corroborated this pattern of overreach.
In her own stunning testimony, Houry revealed that she first learned of a major change to the CDC's COVID-19 vaccine guidance not from the HHS secretary or a scientific briefing but from a post on X (formerly Twitter).
She also testified that she had to push back against requests to include “unproven treatments” for measles in official guidance for doctors. The message from the top leadership of HHS, again, was crystal clear: Political conclusions would come first, and the science had to fall in line.
Faced with this damning evidence, Kennedy’s allies on the committee resorted not to rebuttal but to distraction.
Instead of addressing the substance of Monarez’s claims, Republican senators like Jim Banks (R-Ind.) focused on the political leanings of her attorney – a classic, time-honored ad hominem attack designed to muddy the waters when the facts are inconvenient and don’t go your way.
They tried to paint Monarez as a partisan operative, ignoring her decades of public service under both Republican and Democratic administrations.
Kennedy’s defense, that he fired Monarez because he couldn't "trust" her doesn’t even remotely make sense. It rings hollow.
As Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) noted, it was Kennedy himself who praised her “unimpeachable scientific credentials.” What changed in a matter of weeks? This simple fact: Monarez refused to betray those very same scientific credentials.
Sen. Markwayne Mullins (R-Okla.), accusing Monarez of misrepresenting her termination, warned her that the conversation leading to her dismissal had been recorded. After Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.), the chair of the committee hosting the hearing, demanded the recording, an HHS spokesperson said Mullins had spoken incorrectly.
Meanwhile, as the hearing proceeded, Kennedy was on social media, amplifying attacks from Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) on the very vaccines that Kennedy’s department oversees, revealing his true ideological alignment.
What is especially dangerous about this drama is that it has dangerous, real-world consequences for every American family. The immediate policy hanging in the balance is the newborn hepatitis B vaccine, a safe and effective shot that has protected millions from liver disease and cancer.
The new, handpicked advisory panel (ACIP) is set to review it this week. It’s a potential change so alarming that Sen. Bill Cassidy, a Louisana Republican and a physician, has repeatedly voiced his grave concerns, warning of the harm he has seen inflicted on unvaccinated patients.
Monarez put it best when she expressed her fear that the “further promulgation of misleading information” would undermine public safety. At stake is the scientific integrity that underpins the health and safety of our children and our communities.
Ultimately, Wednesday’s CDC congressional hearing revealed a profound conflict over the meaning of trust. To Kennedy, trust appears to be a synonym for loyalty to his personal and political agenda (and fealty to President Donald Trump).
But for the American people, trust in the CDC must be rooted in an unwavering, unbiased commitment to data, facts, and scientific evidence.
Dr. Susan Monarez was not fired for being untrustworthy; she was fired for being precisely the principled, independent leader the agency and the country need. The question of trustworthiness should now be directed squarely at the office of the HHS secretary.
Jeff Nesbit was the assistant secretary of public affairs at HHS during the Biden administration.
Mark Wayne Mullin is a liar and it was exposed right there and so was Ashley Moody and others who were questioning why she sought legal counsel from Mark Zaid. These people are showing their true colors and it goes back to when the Felon was going after law firms because he didn’t like their clients. The same thing here because Susan Monarez wouldn’t play their game. I believe Monarez is the clear winner here. Oh and Rand Paul was just as guilty as any of the others. He would sit there and impugn Dr Fauci on his motives while talking out both sides of his mouth. Then he did Dr Monarez the same way only he proved to the world what a complete idiot he is with his so called gotcha questions. There’s always exceptions within medicine and science because scientists and doctors have to control for different variables. What’s true for one outcome or one patient is not necessarily always true for another patient or another experiment or another application. Monarez’s answers are were simply normal scientific speak.
What has been happening in these Divided States since January 20, 2025, and continues to happen every day is increasingly sad.