On August 29, local time, the U.S. Department of Health and Public Services (hereinafter referred to as the Department of Health) Secretary Robert Kennedy quickly sent a letter to all employees of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (hereinafter referred to as the Centers for Disease Control) calling for efforts to restore public trust in the agency. Just two days ago, the new director of the Centers for Disease Control, Susan Monarez, who had just served less than a month, was fired, and the Centers for Disease Control fell into unprecedented turmoil, shaking Washington's political arena.
As the "central nervous system" of the American public health system, CDC has been in the spotlight since COVID-19 pandemic. Now, behind the new director's "lightning dismissal", it reflects the fierce collision between scientific principles and political forces.
Less than a month term.
Monarez, 50, officially took office on July 31. However, in the past 27 days, on August 27th, she was declared "resigned" by the Ministry of Health to which she belonged. On the same day, Monarez refused to resign, and retorted in a statement through her lawyer that she "neither resigned nor received notice from the White House about her dismissal".
White House spokesman Kush DeSay later said that Monarez had been dismissed, saying, “Because Monarez still refused to resign actively after expressing his intention to resign to the leadership of the Department of Health and Public Services, the White House has dismissed his position at the U.S. Disease Control Center.”
A few hours later, Monarez's lawyer said that she had received the notice of dismissal, but "the action was legally invalid" because the director of CDC was a position confirmed by the Senate, and only the president had the right to formally dismiss her. Therefore, they questioned the legality of the dismissal.
Following the upheaval inside the Centers for Disease Control, a wave of dismissal has triggered the collective resignation of several senior officials, including Chief Medical Officer and Project and Vice Director of Science, Director of the National Center for Immunity and Respiratory Diseases, and more employees demonstrating at the headquarters, demanding “defending science.”
The Ministry of Health immediately appointed Jim O'Neill, Kennedy's deputy, Deputy Secretary of Health and Human Services, as acting director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, but he once again attracted criticism for his lack of public health background.
Conflict between scientific principles and political pressure
Monarez is the 21st Director of the Centers for Disease Control. After taking office, her disagreement with Secretary of Health Kennedy's ideas has become increasingly exposed.
Kennedy has been promoting the so-called "age-limited vaccine policy", trying to restrict vaccination for certain groups of people (such as children, pregnant women, etc.) on the grounds of "safety doubts," but this has not been supported by the mainstream scientific community. Kennedy hopes that the CDC's top management will "adjust its data presentation and propaganda" to echo its policy philosophy. However, Monares believed that her policy lacked scientific basis, so she refused to implement the vaccine restriction policy and emphasized maintaining the CDC's role as an independent scientific institution. She also refused to fire the core team of scientists within the center in vaccination, disease control, etc., which directly angered Kennedy.
In essence, Monarez's "dismissal" was her insistence on science as a criterion and her unwillingness to become a tool of a political agenda. The conflict was not just personal destiny, but a clash between "science-driven public health policy" and "politics-driven public health policy".
Scientific circles shocked, political circles divided
After Monarez was fired, it caused a great shock in public opinion.
Public health experts voiced their support for Ms. Monarez, calling her dismissal a "landmark case of political interference in science" and fearing a future loss of the CDC's professionalism. George Benjamin, executive director of the American Public Health Association, strongly condemned the impact of the leadership turmoil on public health: "The CDC is one of the most important and credible public health institutions in the world... but it seems to have been gradually destroyed over the past few months." Vindi Armstrong, vice-president of the Infectious Diseases Society of America and a representative of the CDC's core scientific leadership, said the CDC's "loss of four senior leaders and director uncertainty has led to a significant decline in public health security in the United States." Richard Bethel, president and chief executive of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation in the US, said: "The firing of Monarez is another example of the administration's relentless and destructive political agenda, and this approach to politicising public health will cost lives." Scientists widely agree that the loss of core scientific leaders, including Monarez, means the CDC is paralysed in key functions, which will directly damage the public health capacity of the United States. At the same time, the CDC's scientific independence is also suffering from unprecedented political interference, exposing the "head-on conflict between scientific principles and political power".
At the same time, Democratic lawmakers widely criticized this as a "political purge", viewing the dismissal as punishment for the guardians of science and urging Congress to investigate. Senator Bernie Sanders publicly denounced the dismissal as "grossly irresponsible and dangerous... It must be heard as soon as possible, and public trust in vaccine science must not be undermined." Senator Patty Murray directly named Kennedy and demanded that he be removed: "This is unacceptable - Monarez was fired just because of his insistence on public health and vaccines. If there is any reason in the White House, now is the time to remove Kennedy."
Rifts have also emerged within the Republican Party. Some have emphasized the need to enforce the president's will and policies, but others have called for oversight and preservation of the independence of scientific institutions, warning of the negative consequences of political interference. Bill Cassidy, the chairperson of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, who previously supported Kennedy's nomination, made clear after the dismissal that the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee needs to monitor the departure of these top officials. Even moderate Republicans are expressing similar concerns. Senator Susan Collins condemned the shake-up and supported the congressional oversight process against undermining evidence-based public health decisions.
The mainstream media generally believe that this incident has shaken the credibility of CDC. The Washington Post called this a "high-risk game between science and politics" and warned that this "politicized public health" behavior has seriously eroded the institutional credibility and vaccine infrastructure of the CDC, and may lead to the collapse of public trust and the collapse of the epidemic prevention system. The New York Times defined it as an institutional turmoil, emphasizing that CDC is experiencing unprecedented collapse of authority and functional challenges.
Possible investigations and trends
Bill Cassidy, chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pension Committee, has made it clear that he will review this series of personnel shocks.
In accordance with established practice, congressional investigations may include: holding a public hearing to subpoena relevant officials to testify against those who resigned; issuing a subpoena requiring the Department of Health or the White House to submit internal communication records to clarify whether the procedure exceeds its authority; and conducting a legal evaluation to review whether the dismissal authority of the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention belongs exclusively to the President; and whether the Secretary of Health's actions are in compliance.
After these procedures, Congress may choose to issue an investigation report, use budgetary pressures, or push legislation to strengthen the independence and protection of scientific institutions.
Facts have proved that it is difficult to heal the crisis of confidence caused by political interference only by an open letter from the minister. Monarez's rapid dismissal is destined to become a rare event in the history of CDC. In the short term, the storm of congressional investigation and public opinion will continue, and there may be a new round of personnel turmoil within the CDC. In the long run, whether the independence and scientificity of the American public health system can survive the political game is still a sharp question. (CCTV reporter Wu Weihong)