afford health care? >> i you know, congress has to make its own decisions about that. my instructions for president. >> trump, you're saying. >> is to. >> make the i'm having a lot of trouble getting the witness to answer yes or no to a yes or no question. >> well. >> i've got one more question. >> i'm you're almost. >> at nine minutes. >> well. >> i need him to answer. yes or no? yes or no? >> i'm not going to answer yes or no to a question that's not susceptible to an honest yes or no answer. >> we need to move on. i think. >> that the fact that you find it difficult to answer basic questions is deeply troubling for me, as you present yourself as a nominee to run hhs. >> thank you so very much, senator. >> i've been in courts all over the country. and as the. >> chairman, you told me i'm out of time. the witness continues to filibuster even after i said i'm done. >> senator smith. >> mr. chair. thank you. >> thank you, mr. >> chair and ranking member.

>> and welcome. >> mr. kennedy. >> so, mr. >> kennedy. >> i don't. >> have a. >> question for. >> you on abortion. >> i think that my colleagues on both. sides of the. >> aisle have covered. >> this, but i want to. >> say i can respect people who have different views. >> than mine on this issue. but it's hard for me to respect people who won't give. >> a straight answer to what. >> they think on this. >> issue in particular. mr. chair. >> i just want to. >> note that i. >> understand that anti-choice. >> advocates have. >> said that in these hearings, they were looking to hear mr. kennedy. provide some reassurance that he is on their side. and i'm not hearing that. and i think most americans are looking for some. >> hint that. the decisions. >> that people make about abortion should be personal and private, and they should be free to make those decisions without government interference. and i'm not hearing. that either. to make it worse, the answers that you have given tell me that the trump administration is more than willing to restrict or even ban medication abortion without a single act of congress. and even in states where abortion is

legal. and what is clear to me is that you and president trump are. dangerous to women's access to mifepristone. so having said that, i want to move to a different topic. mr. kennedy, i appreciate senator cornyn's questions about mental and behavioral health, something that i care a lot about. i know that you and your family have had personal experience with mental health challenges, as have i, and i agree that the mental health crisis in this country is a. >> is a crisis. >> so let me ask you, in an interview in 2023 and again in 2024, you blamed school shootings on antidepressants. you said and this is a quote, there is no time in american history or human history that kids were going to shoot schools and shooting their classmates. it really started happening coterminous with the introduction of these drugs, with prozac and with other drugs. so do you believe, as you've said, that antidepressants cause school shootings? this is a should be a simple question.

>> i don't think anybody can answer that question. and i didn't answer that question. i said it. >> so your. >> answer is i said it should be studied along with other potential culprits. >> so they may. >> cause social media. yeah, but i don't know. i would never make because there's no science on that. well. >> there is, senator. i mean, excuse me, there is, mr. kennedy. >> thank you for the promotion. >> the science shows that there is no link between school shootings and antidepressants. and in fact, most school shooters were not even treated with antidepressants. and of those that were, there was no evidence of association. you know. >> i don't think. >> my question. >> is, senator, because hipaa rules, nobody knows. >> well, that is mr. kennedy. do you think that people who take antidepressants are dangerous. >> kind of charisma? >> i think i listen, i'm not going into hhs if i'm privileged to be confirmed with any. >> so you can't say that. >> people to impose any preconceived ideas that i may

have. i just want to have good science. >> so you're not saying that they aren't dangerous, which means that they could be dangerous. let me ask you. >> this. >> is not true. >> you've described americans who take mental health medications as addicts who need to be sent to wellness farms to recover. is that what you believe? >> of course, i didn't say that anybody should be compelled to do anything. >> no, but you said they should be sent there. >> i said it should be available to them. i didn't say they should be sent. >> you said. >> that kicking and. >> screaming antidepressants are like addicts. that i can provide, that. >> they should have the availability. listen, i know people, including members of my family, who've had a much worse time getting off of ssris than they did, than people have getting off heroin. it's the withdrawal period is, i mean, and it's written on the label. >> i have. >> some experience well documented myself. >> mr. kennedy, i this is personal for me. when i was a young woman and i was struggling with depression, thankfully i had the resources to help me get

through it, including a new generation of ssri uptake inhibitor inhibitors, which help to clear my mind, get me back on track to being a mom and a wife and a productive, happy person. and i'm really grateful for that therapy. so i have some experience with this, and i think that everyone should have access to that care. and your job as secretary is to expand access to care, not to spread lies and misinformation. and, you know, the things that you say, mr. kennedy, they live on, they have impact. and, you know, we're having this conversation at the same moment that my republican colleagues are looking to try to figure out how to save money any way they can. and so they want to cut medicaid. let's just think about this for a minute, because you're going to be should you be confirmed, you would be responsible for cms, which provides mental and behavioral health care to millions of americans, close to 40% of folks on medicaid have a behavioral health condition. and you would be part of this administration

that would be looking to cut medicaid. so, mr. kennedy, these statements that you've made linking antidepressants to school shootings, they reinforce the stigma that people who experience mental health every day face every single day. and i'm very concerned that this is another example of your record of sharing false and misleading information that actually really hurts people. >> senator, you're mischaracterizing my statements. >> i am only putting into the record what you have said. >> mr. you're mischaracterizing my statements, and i i'm happy that you had a good experience on ssris. many americans have had a very good experience on it. others have not. >> be an issue between them and their physicians and not. >> for the. >> future head of hhs to be putting out misinformation about the dangers of ssris and other anti-depression medication, spreading the stigma and the

fear that we're actually trying to overcome. >> do you think physicians, when they make that prescription, ought to have access to good science? >> of course they do. >> and i that's all i believe to. and you and i are in agreement, senator. >> and to your point that you made when you made these statements, it was not based on good science. i don't know what it was. >> i was saying the science needed to be done. i was saying, these are potential culprits that were coterminous, and i named other things. i said video games. i said social media. i said ssris. ssris have a black box warning, warning of suicidal. mr. chair. >> mr. chair, i will submit to the chair the information that i have about what mr. kennedy has said linking antidepressants to school shootings. thank you. >> senator young. >> thank you, mr. chairman. good to see you. mr. kennedy, to follow up on that spirited exchange. >> in talking. >> with you and reading about your vision for the. >> department. you said one of. >> your goals is to return

public health agencies to the gold standard of scientific review. you've alluded to the gold standard a. >> number of times today. >> so i'm going to give you an opportunity uninterrupted, but hopefully not too extensive. >> to. >> tell me and others what. >> you mean. >> by this gold standard. >> the gold standard means real scientific research with replication of studies, which very rarely happens. now at nih, we should be giving at least 20% of the nih budgets to replication. we should have to make sure that all the science is published with the raw data. we should make sure that the peer reviews are also published. we and you know, and i'll give you a quick example. 20 years ago, hhs, nih scientists did a study on amyloid on alzheimer's, which they said it was caused by amyloid plaque. after that, nih

shut down studies of any other hypothesis. 20 years later, we now know that those studies were fraudulent. nih has funded 800 studies on a fraudulent hypothesis, and we've lost 20 years in figuring out how to a cure for alzheimer's. and that's just one example. i could give you hundreds. we need to end that. we need to end the old boys system. we need to have replicable science and be completely transparent about raw data. >> thank you sir. in recent years, particularly during. >> the covid pandemic, there's. >> been a lot of. skepticism about our public health institutions. some of this. >> i would say. >> is. >> warranted, but. >> it's now. created a pervasive lack of trust from the public that these institutions. >> are acting in. >> bad faith or failing. >> to act in. >> objective with objective. >> criteria. >> failing, in. >> short, to act. >> in the best.

>> interests of the public. if confirmed. >> mr. kenney, how. >> will you work. >> to regain. >> the public's trust? i suspect. >> it will. >> take some time in these. >> important public. >> health institutions. >> i'm through radical transparency. i'm going to make these the reason people don't trust the public health agencies is because they haven't been trustworthy. and you, in the example of covid at the beginning of covid, everybody was rushing to get that vaccine. we had over 90% vaccination uptake. yes, sir. cdc s most recent recommendation is that americans take the eighth booster. only 23% of americans are complying. that means 77% of americans no longer trust cdc. and that is the problem. >> yes, sir. in the absence of full. >> information. >> might have to. >> i think. >> agree with you, but i want your response.

>> might it make sense to. share that absence. >> of full. information with the american people, that unce i think one. >> of the things by observation and experience that. >> i saw. >> during the pandemic. >> was. >> we had certain prominent doctors appear on television and. >> indicate. >> no. >> you absolutely must not wear a mask. >> two weeks. >> later, it's yes, you must. >> wear a mask. >> but they were certain, and. >> they. >> even demonized people for. not following the. >> latest science, knowing there's a. >> high level of. >> uncertainty in that science. what would. >> a measure of humility. >> and, as you. >> say, radical transparency. >> demonstrates humility, help rebuild trust over a period of years? >> absolutely. we need to tell americans what we don't know. we need to make sure studies that reach a null hypothesis are also published. and that doesn't happen, >> sir, i think you are right. >> about why. >> health care costs. >> are so high in the first

place. the answer is indeed chronic disease. 90% of our health care spending g towards managing it. as you say in your open statement, it's not in the main because of waste, fraud and abuse. >> although we. >> know some exist, it's not in the main because we have greedy executives at innovative world class companies. it's not in the main because we haven't yet adopted an unsustainable medicare for all scheme. it's because of this. so i'm encouraged that you you intend to make that a point of emphasis as it pertains to your. future leadership. i will say with respect to covid, it's not. >> over for a lot. >> of americans. it's not over. i know. >> the mission. >> accomplished banner was convenient for the last administration, but as we continue to navigate the ongoing impacts of the covid pandemic, we have many individuals here in the united states and around the world who are suffering from

long term health effects. that significantly impact their quality of life, work and daily activities. and they've been largely ignored. funding for long covid research was appropriated by congress in december of 2020, followed by additional funding directed by the biden administration in february 2020 for patient groups and industry publications have criticized the slow pace of clinical trial design and enrollment. if confirmed, will. you collaborate with health care providers, researchers and effective communities to better understand and mitigate long covid's impact? yes or no, please? >> absolutely, senator, there's 60 million americans. >> will you commit to prioritizing long covid research and integrate this work in a broader health care policies? yes or no, please. >> yes. >> patient groups, experts and industry publications have raised concerns around existing long covid funding being spent on observational research. in particular, criticism was directed towards recovery funding being used to duplicate

existing findings instead of funding trials for potential treatments or diagnostics. if confirmed. mr. kennedy, will you work with congress so that going forward, long covid funding will be directed primarily towards trial or novel research directions and not replicating existing observational research? yes or no? >> absolutely. senator, with enthusiasm. >> thank you so much. >> mr. question. if confirmed. >> how will you create a balance between your personal priorities of chronic disease and healthy lifestyle and the ongoing critical work of the department in areas that are focused on incentivizing and advancing innovation in modern medicine and pharmaceutical discovery? >> i think innovation is going to be the key to public health, and we have a unique opportunity now in history because of ai, because of telemedicine, and

because of the quality of people that are now coming to hhs to actually save public health. but it's all going to rely on innovation. and i don't want to do anything that inhibits or impairs the pace of innovation. >> that's encouraging. from approving ai algorithms to determining medicare coverage we need we certainly need more innovation, and we need good people in the department to assist with that effort. so i'll follow up with a question about how you're going to attract and retain good people. thank you. chairman. >> sorry to shut. >> you down a little faster. >> than i did the other senator. and we are up against a vote deadline here. and we have one more senator who gets his full time. i hope you'll keep it as close to five minutes as you can, senator welch. and then i've promised senator wyden. what, five more minutes. >> can be. >> divided in one minute with my colleague. >> getting one. >> and then if. >> we can do. >> that, we can. >> get over to vote. before they

call the. vote on. >> the floor. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. >> mr. kennedy. >> and as you. >> know. >> i'm a big. >> have great reverence. >> for your. >> family from massachusetts. >> when i got when i got out. >> of. >> college. >> i was in the first class of robert. >> kennedy fellows. >> the memorial. >> created by your family. >> to honor. >> the service. >> of your father. >> i do. >> community organizing. >> and in the west side of chicago, and i certainly. >> admire your energy. >> in your effort. here and desire to serve. >> you know, there's a couple of things that are really important here. >> this is. >> not just about a debate. >> on vaccines. it's a debate. >> about the qualifications, experience and priorities as to the person that will head. health and human services. and it's not just about. >> what your. >> answers are today or what the

questions are. it obviously has a lot to do with your whole record and your whole history. you know. >> your sister in her. >> letter or pardon me, your cousin. >> in. >> her letter said you've always been. >> charismatic. >> able to attract others through the. strength of your personality, willingness to take risk and break rules. that's, i guess, an attribute, but it can be a danger. the question i fundamentally have is whether your willingness to disrupt and maybe break rules is going to be dangerous, and destructive. the character questions we didn't go into here, but there's some sketchy things. you've acknowledged your history with heroin, you've gotten over that. but there's incidents that do, i think, concern the question of whether the stability is there to be in charge of this major organization. and that's compounded by my concern that you don't have any experience managing a large organization. you don't have any experience in

government. so those are things that have to be taken into account. but the issue for me is also priorities. a lot of your engagement in health has been on vaccines. big important issue. you actually disagreed, as i understand it with president trump, about operation warp speed. i think president trump deserves a lot of credit for operation warp speed. he knew we had to get a vaccine and these other issues about a mask and whether you should wear it, whether when you got your groceries, the bag had to be left outside. remember that in the very beginning, those are incidental to the core question that the president believed we had to have a vaccine. and you contested that. that worries me. that really deeply worries me. the other questions senator cassidy asks you some questions about our health care system. i happen to believe that our health care system is profoundly broken. and it's not just about the chronic illnesses. that's about our diet, that's about our

exercise. but we are getting premium increases in vermont of 20% a year, 25% a year, and it's busting the bank for taxpayers. it's busting the bank for our wonderful vermont employers who care about having health insurance that they can provide to their employees. senator cassidy asked you a couple of questions about how you would reform medicaid, and i didn't hear an answer. you mentioned that you thought medicare advantage was good. you have a good plan? no, no. focus on what an incredible rip off was reported in the wall street journal by unitedhealthcare, which was marketing medicare advantage and then paying doctors and nurses where they had assignments essentially to over over it, diagnose illnesses that didn't exist. so they made hundred. they made billions and billions of dollars. and i've seen nothing coming out of the

trump administration, and i've seen nothing coming out of your advocacy that is going after what is a rampant abuse by the insurance companies and overcharging people and not doing the job. and by the way, the unitedhealthcare people, when they did that, they overdiagnosed when the person really got sick, they dumped them, they dumped them. go to the nursing home on your own. that's a broken health care system we spend the most and get the least. and i think there should be collective anger about this on both sides, because all of our people are dependent on that health care system. and you're going to be working for a president who's on a lawless rampage right now. okay? he has done something reckless with the pardons to these cop beaters. i'm appalled by that. but that's just reckless. that's not illegal. he's impounded money. so right now the medicaid

website went down. he's impounded money. so the community health centers that senator warner was talking about are up in the air. so what they can do, do you believe that a president can impound money that has been appropriated by congress? >> senator, i let me answer the question about medicare first. i have never defended that program or the rapacious behavior by insurance companies or the pbms. i understand that's a huge problem. >> and all right. there's i don't have time. i've got to get over to vote so we can. >> do this. but you've asked me five questions. you got to give me a chance to answer one of them. >> please be brief. >> yeah, i, i've, i brought in if i get confirmed, i've already appointed a general counsel the first time in history as a former prosecutor who prosecuted the biggest medicare fraud in the case in the state of west virginia, i brought in a

prosecutor for that job instead of a bureaucrat. precisely. which raises the important issues that you raise here. the only reason i didn't talk about these before is because i wasn't asked about them. what about i agree with you 100%. >> what about impounding a president, impounding money that, among other things, goes to health care? >> and you're saying that that's illegal? >> that's correct. >> well, my job is to uphold the constitution. i'm going to take an oath to uphold the constitution, and i will administer the law and uphold the constitution. >> thank you. yield back. >> mr. mr. chairman, i believe under what we've discussed, i control five minutes. i'm going to take one and give one to each of my four colleagues that remain. >> all right. and i would just say we really this. >> vote, they're going to call it in. about eight minutes. >> thank you. >> so we have very little time. >> two. >> two hours ago, colleagues, i asked mr. kennedy to reconcile

his many anti-vaccine statements with his handful of pro-vaccine statements. instead, he gave us a word salad and ducked the issue. the same was true for mr. kennedy with respect to measles, where he wrote a book playing down the threat of measles. even though american families are very concerned about it. and apparently families are still mourning in samoa. and my last point would be that mr. kennedy said today really wasn't about him. and i just want to tell him it is all about you, because i find your presentation to be both to be both untrustworthy and unprepared, because my colleagues have been seeing back and forth between medicare and medicaid. and it's not clear which program you're using when. so i want colleagues to know

there is a lot more information to learn about mr. kennedy before we vote. i'm going to urge that to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to not make decisions on the basis of this session. i thank you for the additional time. and i guess my next minute is senator whitehouse, senator warren, and senator smith. >> and again. >> one minute, please. there's. >> been a lot of conversation about long late term abortions here. and i just want to make clear what rhode island ob gyn doctors describe as what is almost always happening when a late term abortion is needed. it is a childbirth gone wrong. the family has painted the room. it has bought the crib, maybe even decided on the baby's name and has gone to the hospital to welcome the new baby into their family and what is supposed to be a happy event. and then things went wrong. then the

alarm started pinging, the lights started flashing, the medical professionals started rushing in and the question became who lives and who dies? the mom's life is often at risk and she may have other children. she needs to care for. the baby's life may be at risk, and one or both may die in that environment. the doctors and the family own that decision. government has no place in that room at that point, and i think we need to understand when this late term abortion gets bandied about. what you're dealing with is a tragedy that is happening to a family who wanted that child and have suddenly been confronted with a moment in

which they have to make what is probably going to be the worst decision of their lives, and to try to shove the state legislature into that room is really offensive, really morally wrong. and i just want to make very clear what rhode island ob gyns tell me is the situation when these procedures have to be deployed. >> senator warren. >> thank you, mr. chairman. so, mr. kennedy, i wanted to ask about your role in the 2019 measles outbreak in samoa. in july 2018, two children died immediately after receiving a measles vaccine that nurses had mistakenly mixed with a muscle relaxant. the nurses get charged with manslaughter, but vaccination rates go down. i asked you about this in my office. you told me flatly that your visit to samoa had nothing to do with vaccinations. we now

know that's not true. i have the documentation. you met with the prime minister. you talked about vaccinations. you met with an anti-vaccine influencer who described the meeting as, quote, profoundly monumental for this movement. so what happens? vaccinations go down, there's a measles outbreak and children start dying. but you double down. you didn't give up. just four days after the prime minister declared a state of emergency, 16 people already dead. you sent a letter to him promoting the idea that the children had died not from measles, but from, quote, defective vaccine. you launched the idea that a measles vaccine caused these deaths. you are a very influential man. in fact, you are called the leader of the disinformation dozen. multiple by unicef and w.h.o, the world health organization investigated

this. they say the claims are false. it is not biologically possible what you claimed. and yet, ultimately, more than 70 people died because they didn't get vaccines. so my question is, is do you accept even a scintilla, just even a sliver of responsibility for the drop in vaccinations and the subsequent deaths of more than 70 people? anything you do differently? >> i know, absolutely not. after the there were two incidents in which children died in 2015 and again in 28, 2015, it was from the measles vaccine. that's what the new zealand general hospital found. the government of samoa banned the measles vaccine after the 2018. i arrived in july of the next year, after the ban had been in place for a year. mr.

chair, the measles. >> understanding that you wanted to hold this to a minute and that i don't get to present all the facts and documentation i've got, how about if we just decide to make entries for the record on exactly what the record shows about mr. kennedy's participation? and i think he's answered the yes or no question. he takes no response. senator warren, we. >> will. do that. and mr. kennedy, and to all the senators, every senator knows that following this hearing, they will be able to ask you questions off the record, and you will be able to put answers back onto the record. so please give that answer. i apologize that we're shutting you off for giving a full response right now, senator. >> smith, and we. >> are. >> way over time. >> thank you, mr. chair. so, mr. kennedy, you have said that you want to give infectious diseases a break for about eight years. you spoke about this with senator cantwell. my question to you has to do with avian flu. over 100 million birds called the disease has spread to dairy cows. and there are now 67 confirmed human cases and one

death. so, mr. kennedy, do you intend to give research on bird flu a break? >> no, i intend to devote the appropriate resources to preventing pandemics. that's a central part of my job. >> what do you think is causing the avian influenza? >> i think the h5n1 virus is. >> so that's good to hear, because in a recent book, i will submit this for the record because we don't have that much time. mr. kennedy has questioned the scientific basis for germs causing disease and the power of vaccines and antibiotics. >> i've never questioned that, senator. >> well, i will submit that for the record. >> thank you. >> senator warnock. one minute. >> i like the way you said that to the baptist preacher. thank you so much, mr. kennedy. based on our conversations, it's my understanding that you support work requirements in medicaid. in 2020, trump president trump approved a proposal from georgia state leaders requiring georgians to jump through a number of onerous bureaucratic hoops and fill out even more paperwork to verify work and get

access to health care. i ask this as someone who represents a state that has not expanded medicaid. the federal government, because of this waiver, spent $70 million on georgia's medicaid waiver. 82% of that went to administrative costs. the point that i'm making is that the folks that they are insisting need to work, 90% of those folks are working. they are they are caregivers or they have a disability. let me give you one example. a woman i think of all the time. her name is heather. she's a traveling nurse from dalton, georgia, who falls into the medicaid coverage gap. heather experienced a series of small strokes, leaving her unable to work full time. she's dedicated her life to caring for patients, but now she can't afford her own medical care out of pocket costs because she doesn't make enough to qualify for tax credits to buy private insurance. what does heather need? does she need work requirements or does she need

access to health care so she can finally get healthy and get back to work? >> that the individual that you described would need health care and not a work requirement? >> thank you, thank you. thank you, thank you. >> and we are done with the questioning. >> now, mr. kennedy, i apologize to you, to the audience and to all of my colleagues to have to rush it here at the end. but we have a vote on the senate floor that they're going to close in about three minutes. i want to thank you for appearing before this committee. you have been accessible to the members and staff on both sides of the aisle of the finance committee throughout a rigorous process, and i want the whole world to know that you spent hours on, in meetings answering questions outside of this hearing and providing documents and responses on issue after issue after issue. you've gone through the most thorough vetting process that any committee in this congress puts anybody through. and i think that you

have come through well and deserved to be confirmed. i would like to remind my colleague colleagues that the deadline for submitting any questions, for the record, is 5 p.m. today, 5 p.m. today. and, mr. kennedy, we ask that you respond to those questions as quickly as you possibly can. with that, i'm going to leave you in this room and run over to vote. this hearing will be adjourned. i still encourage the audience to be polite and respectful, no matter what side of the issues you may be on. and mr. kennedy, i look forward to working with you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. adjourned. >> good day. i'm chris jansing, live at msnbc headquarters in new york city. >> there is a. lot to dig. >> into from robert f kennedy jr. s confirmation hearing to be the next hhs secretary. but first, we just got. >> big breaking news from the. >> white house. >> they have now. formally

rescinded that memo. about a. federal aid freeze that sparked. widespread chaos and confusion. joining us now is nbc sahil kapur on capitol hill. just to remind folks, this was. >> a. >> two page memo, but one. >> that potentially. >> impacted and froze money to as many as 2600 programs in the federal government. there was huge pushback. what happened? >> that's absolutely right, chris. >> this is a major turnaround for the trump white house. rescinding this memo that went out late monday night that caused all sorts of chaos and confusion, ordering federal government departments and agencies to freeze what. >> could have been hundreds. >> of billions of dollars in federal aid funding. while those agencies were ordered to comply with president trump's new executive orders. now, in a new memo that i obtained about 45 minutes ago, the omb has officially rescinded that monday memo. this comes after enormous pushback from democrats, who argued that this could harm programs that their constituents

rely on in red states and blue states. it has sparked some reaction already here on capitol hill. the rescission that is senator chuck schumer, the democratic minority leader, says, quote, though the trump administration failed in this tactic, it's no secret that they will try to find another. and when they do, it will again be senate democrats there to call it out, fight back and defend american families, unquote. that's chuck schumer taking some credit for creating the kind of noise and pushback that sparked the white house to rescind this memo. the white house tried a tactic yesterday to simply clarify the original memo, which was vaguely worded. it didn't make clear which programs were and weren't affected in terms of that federal aid freeze. one of the big questions there was medicaid. the white house was not clear initially whether medicaid would be part of that freeze. that's 72 million people who had health insurance who could potentially be affected. they issued a clarifying memo yesterday saying that medicaid was not affected. but still, the confusion that this has sparked

across the country appeared to be enough for the white house to say simply no need for the federal aid freeze anymore, and the agencies and departments can try to comply with president trump's executive orders without the more aggressive action of freezing aid, in a way. chris, this is a politically the first win that democrats have had in the new trump era. this was something that the democrats were were very united on in terms of pushing back right in their sweet spot of saying, of trying to convey to voters that they're the party of middle class benefits and using the government to try to protect people who need it. so next steps. trump's executive orders remain in place. he signed a flurry of them. now the government is going to have to, you know, try to implement them without this drastic step. >> sahil kapur on the hill for us. thank you. i want to bring in doctor derek haas. >> an emergency medicine physician, also. >> former regional. >> director at hhs. >> okay. so you've worked in government. there was a statement by senator patty murray. she's the vice chair of the senate appropriations

committee. she said this is about massive pressure from every corner of the country. true, there was pressure, including from some republicans who were hearing from their constituents. it was challenged in court almost immediately. and then there was the problem of. the white house not being able to answer basic questions about which programs were going to be affected, which weren't. other than saying, well, money that goes directly to individuals is going to be protected. there was some question about whether even that happened. that's a big prelude to my basic question. is it clear now with what is frankly, and we can put it up there? again, it's just two sentences rescinding this saying, you know, don't pay attention to this anymore. is it clear that all the money is going to start flowing again? >> so no. >> it's definitely not clear. in fact, a lot. of the motivations behind. >> doing this is to scare. >> people, people from. >> planning ahead. >> right. >> so remember that this isn't the only memo or the. >> only executive order. >> that's cut. >> funding to. >> public. >> health programs. there's still. >> international programs. >> that are frozen. >> there's still science.

>> funding at the nih that. >> is. >> still paused. >> this was just. >> one of the ways that they. >> cut funding. >> and by. by being very broad. >> in their declarations. >> and then having. >> to claw. >> back individually. >> oh, no. >> it. doesn't affect medicaid. it doesn't affect individual, you know. >> reimbursements or funding. they're confusing places like. >> federally qualified. >> health centers. >> we heard this today during. >> the. >> hearing from senator warner, who said federally qualified health centers serve people, right. many people in america don't even. >> know if they get. >> care at a. >> federally qualified. >> health center, but in fact, they are funded from the. federal government. to states. and then states give. >> them money a lot. >> of times to. >> the to the clinics themselves. so. >> no, this is not. >> a victory. >> for american health care or even. >> for the planning and. >> execution of the services that americans need. but it is better. than what. >> we had a. few hours ago. >> okay. thank you. doctor. >> you're staying with me. >> we want to go now. >> to robert. >> kennedy jr. s contentious hearing ahead of a vote that could make him the next health and human services secretary, that job would. >> put. >> the well-being of millions of americans in the hands of a man who's many controversial

statements include repeatedly questioning scientific consensus and spreading lies about, among other things, vaccines and aids. today's senate hearing gave kennedy the chance to convince senators that those positions, along with questions surrounding his politics and personal behavior, should not stop this nomination and keep him from, as president trump put it, going wild on health. democrats challenged kennedy on scores of past statements. here's one of the more intense exchanges. >> did you say lyme. >> disease is a highly likely militarily engineered bioweapon? >> i probably did say that. >> did you say that? >> that's what. >> i want all of our colleagues to hear it, mr. kennedy. i want them to hear it. you said yes. did you say that exposure to pesticides causes children to become transgender? >> no, i never said that. >> okay, i have. >> the record that i'll give to. >> the chairman, and he can make

his judgment about. >> what you said. did you write in your book? >> and i. it's undeniable that african american african aids is an entirely different disease from western aids. >> yes or no? >> mr. kennedy? i'm not sure if i. >> i'll give it to the chairman. >> and from. >> the. >> very start. >> of the hearing, kennedy tried to address one of the most pressing questions, and that is regarding his position on vaccines. >> news reports have claimed that i am anti-vaccine or anti industry. i am neither, i am pro safety. i worked for years to raise awareness about the mercury and toxic chemicals in fish, and nobody called me any fish. and i believe that all my that vaccines play a critical role in health care. all of my kids are vaccinated. i've read many books on vaccines. >> i want to bring in nbc's. >> vaughn hillyard. on capitol hill. >> marc short is chairman of the

board for advancing american freedom. he previously served as chief of staff to vice president mike pence. suzanne craig is the new york times investigative reporter and an msnbc political analyst. doctor derek haas is still with me, along with nbc's senior reporter brandy zadrozny. okay, let's talk generally about this hearing. vaughn, did you hear anything that suggests to you he may have lost some republican votes? >> bill cassidy was the one senator that i'm intrigued to talk to here on capitol hill with the commencing of this hearing here. i think that this is important because bill cassidy asked him a line of questioning when it came to particularly about medicaid. again, when you're being put atop hhs, you're overseeing more than a dozen health agencies, and there is an operational part of this. it's not just a position on vaccines. it's not just your position on nutrition, but it's also a actual functioning of the budgets that are massive. when you're talking about cdc and in ultimately,

right. he was asked about cms reimbursement, for example. and i think that that is where the line of questioning when it came to medicaid, in which he seemed to be unclear about some of the basic operations of how medicaid funds are distributed around the country, and especially under the expansion of medicaid to 40 states now. but i want to let you listen, though, to his response to senator cortez masto, because for kennedy, he really rose in popularity around the country, not so much of, i guess, by extension of his independent run for the presidency, but even more so as sort of an underground make america wealthy again movement that really focused in on changing americans diet and also changing what, what is actually going into american food products. for example, i want to let you listen to part of his response. >> president trump has asked me to end the chronic disease epidemic and make america

wealthy again. and i'm the only reason. >> why. >> you're at hhs. >> is that. >> the only reason why. >> you're at the hhs to. >> address that one. >> issue. trump has asked me, because i'm in a unique position to end that. so and that is what i'm doing. and if we don't solve that problem, senator, all of the other disputes we have about who's paying and whether it's insurance companies, whether it's providers, whether it's hmos, whether it's patients or families, all of those are moving deckchairs around on the titanic. our ship is sinking, essentially. >> kennedy there owning that. yes, that he saw a groundswell of support not only on the online, but also at the several political events of his that i went to over the course of the last year, plus that there was a movement around him and this effort specifically on that. and that is why, as he acknowledged, it's not his position on abortion that got him elevated to this position, but instead it's the groundswell of support

around changing americans health and diet that led him here to this moment to be nominated, and what he contends should lead to his confirmation. >> yes, suzanne, that's what's interesting, among other things, about this, right, because there are things. >> that robert. >> f kennedy will say, like, americans don't eat well, necessarily. that might resonate with a lot of people. right? so the task going in seemed to be for him to like, downplay more the more controversial things that he has said, maybe to separate himself from the person. his own cousin, caroline kennedy, called just late yesterday in a letter, a predator and, i don't know, present a more buttoned down, pragmatic version of himself. but i wonder if what you saw today in which ways that is or is not the bobby kennedy you have covered. >> right? it was interesting to. see his. >> position on vaccines. and i think coming into this, i think many senators have. decided that they're going to believe what he's saying. despite what he has

said in the past. he was pretty adamant today that he now supports vaccines. he said, i am supportive of them even when presented, i think rather colorfully by bernie sanders with these onesie jumpsuits for toddlers that say no vax, no problem, that the children's health defense, an organization he until recently led, have been selling. there's multiple statements of him on the record against vaccinations, and now he's saying he was simply misunderstood. and i think. >> that i was. surprised today that. >> the vaccine, that the discussion pivoted more towards abortion. but i think they're trying to surface the fact that he was pro-choice for a long time now. now, when he's confronted with that position, he again has done an about face and he says, you know, i support president trump, that every abortion is a tragedy. he's changed his position on that. but i think that senators on the democratic side were trying to elevate that issue. just i think, you know, there's a lot of republicans who have strong

views on that. and i think they wanted to keep surfacing it. >> but one of the. >> things it's interesting that vaughn. >> you know, brought. >> up medicare and medicaid, because one of the things i thought kennedy was quite weak on was his understanding of medicaid. you know, he made a number of statements that didn't quite jibe, including talking about the high premiums for the program. it's not a program where that's an issue, for the most part, doesn't have premiums. it's for people with with less income. >> so i. >> thought that was surprising. and also, his character didn't really come up. and maybe that's not a surprise in this current environment. but that letter yesterday was explosive from his cousin. so many people are talking about it and it it got a mention at the end. but that was that was really it. yeah. >> i want to go back for a second if i can. marc, to the abortion issue, because your group has been one of the most vocal in opposing kennedy for his long time support of abortion. and i think early on, when the nomination first came out, it was expected to be a problem for him among republicans. did you believe

what he was saying today? and do you think this is going to be a problem for him with republicans on that committee, who are largely, very clearly. anti-abortion? >> well, chris, i would. >> certainly welcome. >> any convert. >> to the pro-life cause, however you think. >> he's do you think he's a convert? >> i'm i think there should be better questions directed as opposed to. simply saying, i'll do what president. >> trump wants. >> i think the reality is that senator hassan made a great point that republicans will be. >> complicit in. >> putting forward perhaps. >> the most pro-abortion nominee ever. >> put. >> forward by a republican administration into this role, and makes it a lot. harder for republicans to oppose a democrat. >> nominee in the. >> future on. >> the grounds of life. >> and i think that, you know, we. >> hope that that there's a. >> conversion on rfk. >> but it was only a few months ago that his campaign was supporting abortion through all. >> nine months. >> of a pregnancy. >> and. >> i think that it does go beyond that, though. i think

this. >> shows donald trump's. >> true triumph over senate republicans, because. it's hard to think of a. >> time when. >> someone is asked. >> to join the. >> cabinet of a republican. >> administration who has called the nra a terrorist group. >> who has. >> asked for the complete. shutdown of all fossil fuel production in the united states, who has said that meat producers are a bigger threat to the country than osama bin laden, who has said that covid was. >> was designed to. target asians. >> and african americans and to spare jews. it's kind of remarkable that this is. >> a. >> person who would be asked to join a cabinet. >> in a. republican administration. >> and yet there's. >> so little actual. >> opposition from. >> any republican. >> in the senate on. >> this nomination, i think just illustrates. >> the donald trump's true triumph. >> over senate republicans. >> yeah, it wasn't that long ago. what was it, 14 months? i have to check my own math that he was running for president on the democratic side. okay, brandi, let's talk about the vaccine controversy, because this was one that came up again and again. and he tried to

explain his past statements on vaccines. and here's an exchange with senator ron wyden. >> are you lying to congress today when you say you are pro-vaccine or did you lie on all those podcasts? we have all of this on tape, by the way. yeah. >> senator, as you know, because it's been repeatedly debunked, that statement that i made on the lex fridman podcast was a fragment of the statement. he asked me, are there vaccines that are safe and effective? and i said to him, some of the live virus vaccines are. and i said, there are no vaccines that are safe and effective. and i was going to continue for every person, every medicine has people who are sensitive to them, including vaccines. >> right. >> so he interrupted me at that point. i've corrected it many times, including on national tv. >> he says. now he's not anti-vaccine. but i wonder, what

does history tell us? >> this is marketing. he is the leader. >> of an anti-vaccination movement and the most. >> well-funded nonprofit. >> marketing himself. >> right now, his nonprofit. >> he's now. >> resigned as of december. >> it's called children's. >> health defense. >> who could be. >> against children or defending. >> their health? it sounds. >> really great. >> he's not anti-vaccine. >> he's pro health freedom. >> this is what these. groups do. >> they consistently and. >> mainstream say we. >> just want safe vaccines. >> who would be against that? but in the private spaces that i was glad. >> to see, some of it really a. >> thimbleful of what's out there represented today in the committee was, he. >> says. >> that he has said that he goes up to women and. parents carrying babies. >> on a hiking trail. >> and says, you better not vaccinate that baby if you want to save that baby, he says. he said touted today i have all my kids vaccinated. but in podcasts with charlie kirk and his group children's health defense, he has said if he could, he would

pay anything to be able to reverse that decision because vaccines have caused all of his children's allergies. it's a lie. it's just. >> a lie. >> so, doctor, most people would agree. why wouldn't you agree with him? we want vaccines to be safe, right? but as we listen to him. and after what you heard today, do you think he could effectively lead hhs? >> no. i'm sorry. no. >> definitely not. i mean, for so many reasons, not just. >> related to his desire. >> to convey. >> misinformation and questioning. >> unsafe and. >> effective vaccines, but in fact, he doesn't understand what the. agency does. >> he got. >> so many questions, wrong facts, wrong understandings of funding or access to medicare and medicaid, both of which he doesn't seem to understand. he confused the indian health. service with federally qualified health centers. so no, of course, americans want our vaccines. >> to be safe and effective. >> and they are, because our process. >> at the fda. is robust. >> and when vaccines. are approved and people take them, they can trust in our process. what happens when he

overreaches? something that's never happened before and. >> starts asking. >> for reauthorizations or removal. >> of authorizations of vaccines. >> then we'll see exactly what happened in american samoa, where vaccine rates went from 70%. >> to. >> 30%, and he continued. >> to sow that. misinformation and. >> disinformation, and people died. >> i want to bring in doctor kavita patel. she's a former obama white house policy director and an msnbc medical contributor. so, doctor patel, just to sort of recap, if confirmed, rfk jr would have control over a dozen, more than a dozen agencies and divisions. what do you believe the impact would be on american health care? >> yeah. >> chris, i actually do think all the signals from today's senate hearing and what i'm hearing around the hill is that he will get confirmed. so i think the impact is already devastating with what you've seen in executive orders and some of the kind of acting political people that they've put into place, even simple things like the food and drug administration principal deputy that's acting, putting, making america healthy again, unlike the signature line for the food

and drug administration. so it's kind of inculcating a lot of the messages where you heard rfk come out strong. you could tell what he felt passionately about, not just vaccines and safety, but food and chronic disease, a theme over and over and over again. but then, chris, he doesn't have the knowledge, and you don't need to know what's going to expect somebody to come in and understand how 93,000 career staff and political operate every day. but you also saw, like, a lack of intellectual curiosity to kind of kind of come back and say, what does that mean? you know, kind of an imd exclusion for behavioral health. like i'm interested in learning more. you heard just a little bit of that when he was in a corner. i would expect to see even more of that kind of or less of that curiosity on steroids, which means the white house, the office of management and budget are going to have such oversize, significant power that talking about the secretary of hhs is not even as relevant as looking at the political appointees that are kind of around him. and that's where i would concentrate kind of what would happen next. >> you know, you've worked on the inside, and we keep hearing

the word disruptor. obviously, that's something donald trump has used. that's what he wants. that's certainly what rfk is signaling he will be. most americans do generally believe government can run more efficiently, more effectively. but here's elizabeth warren expressing concern about kennedy having the power that comes with being hhs secretary. >> you've taken in $2.5 million. i want to know if you will commit right now that not only will you not go to work for drug companies, you won't go to work suing the drug companies and taking your rake out of that while you're a secretary. and for four years after, it's. >> just i'll commit to not taking any fees from drug companies while i'm secretary. i, i. >> i'm asking about fees from suing drug companies. will you agree not to do that? >> you're asking me to not sue drug companies? no. and i'm not going to agree to drug. >> companies as. >> much. >> as you want.

>> i'm not going to agree to not sue drug companies or anybody. >> there are a lot of people who support rfk. >> who will. >> see those. that as political questioning. is it or are those questions with real life implications for americans? >> no. they are. i mean, the tagline to senator warren's testimony or questions was kids might die, but robert kennedy can keep cashing in. and i think it really kind of crosses this line of not just conflict of interest, chris, but how what kind of message do we want to have? somebody that has so much oversight on health really standing for? is it really their personal interest? and i think that's what's so frustrating to people such as myself and probably like tara, so many kind of like public health professionals. like there's this sense of, you know, robert kennedy is one of us. but when you look at kind of how he's made his money, what he's making his money on, he's not one of us. he's not leading with the science because he's cashing in on that very skepticism. i'm all for healthy debate. i think that's important. i don't think anybody's voices should be stifled. but when you have this kind of oversight and he has

enforcement authority, judicial over all of the oversight and possibility. but again, i kind of point to this is just going to translate to more power for the white house, for some of these very concentrated areas of political appointees. and that in any administration is dangerous writ large. >> there was. >> a. >> lot of belief in the last, in the first trump administration, that there were people who served as guardrails. now, you've heard president trump, if you want to work in this government, in this administration, you have to get on board with what we believe, what i believe. so i wonder i'm sure you've had these conversations. if you're a scientist, you're a doctor or anyone else who believes that the mission at hhs is going to fundamentally change in a way that goes against what they believe, do you stay inside and hope you can still have a positive impact? or do you say, i can't function? >> i feel like you're listening in on conversations i'm having with some of those very scientists who are, you know, career appointees, even thinking

about being political appointees. look, i've been through so many transitions of administrations, people on both sides of the aisle who want to serve. but to your point, chris, they're being asked questions like, where do you stand on abortion? where do you stand on transgender athletes? where do you stand on transgender medical care? we've already seen white house orders and proclamations in these themes to date in just one week. so when you're being asked those questions and you're a scientist, a doctor with training such as mine, it is very hard to be able to say i, you know, yes, i will, i will apply this one kind of litmus test. it's what we ask of supreme court nominees. where do you stand on these issues? and they all say, we want to look at the law. in this case. you can't help but believe that you need to have the right answer or you're not going to be allowed, whether it's career or political. and you heard themes of that today. you heard that that's what the biden administration did. that's simply not true, chris, because we saw not just in biden, but in obama, in trump, in bush. we've seen dissent inside of the administration that produces healthy dialog that usually

produces, like a healthy relationship between the executive branch and the congressional branch and the judicial branch. this might be the first time, chris, where i've seen kind of all three kind of pillars of our democracy kind of going through this litmus phrase ending with, this is what president trump thinks, dot, dot, dot, you heard that today on abortion as well from rfk jr. >> yeah. doctor kavita patel, it's always good to see you. thanks, suzanne. i know you've done extensive work digging in to kennedy's background. you know, he is passionate about these issues. he certainly sounds passionate. if you listen to him. previously, for example, the washington post says he has publicly, publicly labeled vaccine dangerous 114 times in the past four years and of course, falsely linked them to autism dozens of times. so if he says that his beliefs have changed, or he's going to put things on the back burner, that, you know, this is donald trump's administration, should people believe him?

>> i think. >> people have to make up their own mind. >> i mean, i think. >> a lot of people. >> are skeptical. >> because of what you just said. and now he's saying something else because he's running for something. he's trying to get this vote. you know, i think. his background speaks for itself, and i encourage people to dig into it and look at what he's said. look at what he said today. you know, he's claiming now in interviews where he said i was against vaccines, no vaccine is safe, that he was simply, you know, cut off. look at those interviews and see what you think. but he has said it over and over and over. and, you know, he's he's been involved with a, you know, with an organization. you know, i think some people just saw, you know, bernie sanders going after him for having baby shirts that said, no vax, no problem. i mean, those things speak loudly. and i would just encourage people to look at look at his record on it and then maybe contrast it to what he said today. i'm skeptical that. >> mark, let me ask you about just working inside of government, because and i'll be the first one to say this, i was a journalist for, i don't know,

30 years. and then i went to work covering the white house, and it was eye opening. when you actually see up close, right, how complicated things are, how much people have to work, i'm sure for you on the hill, it was it's a different experience when you're there than you're when you think you know a lot about it from afar. what does it mean to have people come in in areas where they may be willing to disrupt and maybe even they've had conversations about it, as rfk jr certainly has about things like vaccines, written books about it, but not understand necessarily how government works. what's what's that mean? >> well, chris, i honestly think that a lot of american voters actually wanted change. >> they wanted a disruption. and i think that they acknowledge that sometimes. >> that won't necessarily. >> have the same. >> longevity of career public service. and that's what they want. >> is they. actually want the change. >> and i think there's no doubt th