Trending
Erica Schwartz, the nominee to lead the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, was asked last Wednesday whether she supports the Trump administration's cancellation of mRNA vaccine research. "This is the first time I'm actually hearing about this," she said. "As a private citizen, I certainly was not following that."
Really?
Schwartz said several times that she believes mRNA vaccines are safe and effective, but her professed ignorance of a decision that sent shock waves through the public health field highlights how much she'll struggle to be effective if confirmed.
Schwartz is the third person tapped by President Donald Trump to run the CDC under Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. The first, Dave Weldon, was withdrawn because senators feared his anti-vaccine views would give Kennedy too much leeway to dismantle immunization policies. The second, Susan Monarez, was fired just weeks into the job because of her refusal to comply with Kennedy's agenda.
Avoiding those fates is surely on Schwartz's mind. She knows that she must articulate unvarnished support for vaccines to secure enough GOP votes for confirmation. Yet she also must cultivate a working relationship with Kennedy, which means avoiding public criticism of his policies.
Thus, when Senate Health Committee Chairman Bill Cassidy (R-Louisiana) pressed Schwartz on whether she would be able to do what's right, "free of political interference," she scoffed at the notion that this could ever become an issue. "The secretary absolutely will allow me to be the CDC director," she said.
When Sen. Patty Murray (D-Washington) asked how she would respond if Kennedy demanded that she agree to approve every recommendation from his handpicked vaccine advisory committee, Schwartz responded, "The secretary would never ask me to do that."
But that's exactly what Kennedy allegedly did with Monarez, triggering her departure.
Schwartz's assurances that she will "follow the science, wherever it leads" are certainly welcome, as is her expression of support for vaccines. But words themselves are less important than a willingness to stand by them once in office.
Will she stick up for mRNA vaccines? The technology has the power to respond quickly to new pathogens and create personalized therapies, yet administration officials -- especially Kennedy -- have remained hostile to them.
And how much control of her agency will she really have? Kennedy is reportedly pushing researchers to look for links between immunizations and conditions such as autism. He's also reportedly considering creating a new science office at the CDC that would report to political staff and reworking the charter of the agency's vaccine advisory committee to broaden the qualifications of who can serve on it.
Schwartz's performance on Wednesday inspired little confidence that she will serve as an effective check on the anti-vaccine cranks atop HHS. So long as Kennedy remains in charge, it might be an impossible task.