Why the Health Care Industry is Allowing RFK Jr. to Easily Achieve Confirmation
A limited number of health care organizations, ranging from pharmaceutical companies to medical professionals, are urging senators to prevent Robert F. Kennedy Jr. from assuming the role of HHS secretary.
TroibNews 
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s anticipated Senate confirmation on Thursday to head the nation’s health agencies poses significant disruption for America’s $4 trillion health care sector.
The response from the industry has been largely subdued, with stakeholders hoping for a positive outcome.
From pharmaceutical companies to medical organizations, many groups that previously wielded considerable influence in shaping policy and funding in Washington have refrained from voicing concerns about Kennedy. This silence persists despite his allegations of fraud and conspiracy against them, along with his intention to hold them accountable.
This reluctance isn’t due to a lack of concern, but rather an acknowledgment that they cannot stop him or that the repercussions for speaking out could be severe, according to five representatives from health organizations who requested anonymity for candidness. By remaining silent, they aim to minimize any potential backlash if Kennedy pursues his agenda to overhaul the industry.
“They think he’s the wrong person for the job,” noted Dr. Georges Benjamin, executive director of the American Public Health Association, one of the few organizations to openly criticize Kennedy’s nomination to lead the Department of Health and Human Services. “With good respect to all my buddies, they’re making the false assumption that if they stay silent, they will get something in return.”
The health care industry’s muted reaction to Kennedy also reflects the extent to which President Donald Trump has reshaped traditional Republican alliances in favor of a populist, working-class revolt, leaving many established interests sidelined.
Kennedy has made provocative claims, suggesting that hospitals, physicians, and pharmaceutical companies collaborate to keep Americans unhealthy, criticized the industry’s influence on federal policy, insinuated that health institutions deliberately suppress uncomfortable evidence, and proposed drastic changes to the regulatory structure governing health care.
Despite this, the American Medical Association, the leading professional society for physicians, has not officially taken a position on Kennedy’s nomination.
Similarly, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, once perceived as an influential lobby in Washington, has expressed only a desire to collaborate with Trump and his administration.
Even the American Academy of Pediatrics, whose members administer childhood vaccines that Kennedy has claimed, counter to established scientific consensus, cause autism, has not opposed his nomination. The organization rolled out a vaccination promotion campaign in conjunction with Kennedy’s confirmation hearings but did not advocate against his appointment.
None of these groups chose to speak with PMG on the record regarding Kennedy.
Supporters of Kennedy argue that his challenging stance against the industry is essential for achieving reform in American health care.
“Bobby and President Trump have gone up against the largest and most powerful industries in the country and are winning,” commented Calley Means, an adviser to Kennedy, on X last week. “The result is the chance of a healthier future for our kids.”
Some Republican senators have recognized the lack of opposition to Kennedy as tacit approval, feeling justified in supporting a longtime Democrat and progressive environmentalist who has criticized industries traditionally aligned with their party.
“I believe that silence is consent,” remarked Thom Tillis after voting to advance Kennedy’s nomination in a Senate Finance Committee session last week. “The fact that they haven’t [opposed Kennedy publicly] suggests to me that folks that I’m instructed by are OK with this nomination.”
This lack of vocal resistance, contrasted with the issues the groups highlight in discussions on Capitol Hill, indicates a desire to protect their chances for legislative changes where they have bipartisan support.
Doctors are lobbying to reverse recent cuts to Medicare reimbursements as funding legislation is set for discussion next month, while pharmaceutical companies believe there may be opportunities to curb the power of pharmacy benefit managers involved in managing drug costs.
They also hope that Kennedy’s aggressive rhetoric proves to be more bluster than substantive threats. This notion gained traction last December when Trump hosted an extended dinner with Kennedy and major pharmaceutical executives at Mar-a-Lago and later suggested that Kennedy would collaborate with the industry rather than oppose it. Recently, Kennedy has also mingled with leaders from companies that manufacture weight-loss medications he previously condemned.
Representatives from health industry groups say they intend to respond to Kennedy’s policy moves as they arise, opposing any measures they find objectionable while refraining from personal attacks against him. For instance, hospitals, medical schools, and public health organizations recently united in opposition to proposed cuts in research funding from the National Institutes of Health, resulting in a federal judge blocking the cuts from taking effect.
By avoiding direct criticism of Kennedy, the health industry hopes to prevent energizing the Make America Healthy Again movement that he spearheads—an initiative that has galvanized grassroots pressure on senators, successfully persuading Republican Bill Cassidy, who had previously confronted Kennedy about his vaccine views, to support his nomination.
Recent polling indicates that Americans prioritize health concerns such as safe food and water and the fight against chronic diseases, which align with the core principles of the MAHA movement.
“RFK Jr. isn’t just a nominee for a Cabinet position,” said Cybil Roehrenbeck, a partner at Hogan Lovells, a law and lobbying firm representing health clients. “He’s also a leader for a major movement in America.”
In fact, some public affairs executives assert that health organizations are adapting their messaging to resonate with populist movements like Kennedy’s MAHA following.
Industry leaders, however, remain aware of the potential repercussions of this approach.
At his confirmation hearings, Kennedy sought to assuage concerns about his stance against industry practices but nonetheless criticized health companies' influence over HHS, rising drug prices, and the tendency to widely prescribe medications for conditions such as ADHD and anxiety. He has threatened retribution against agency employees and mass firings—threats viewed with greater seriousness in light of precedents set by Trump adviser Elon Musk and his efforts to dismantle the U.S. Agency for International Development.
Some worries are more existential in nature.
If Kennedy were to undermine vaccination efforts and foster infectious disease outbreaks, it could lead to a significant public health crisis, “creating a national security issue where so many people are sick, burdening emergency departments,” cautioned Erik Wexler, CEO of Providence Health.
Wexler expressed his belief that the country has achieved a balanced focus on both chronic and infectious diseases, which contradicts Kennedy’s argument for reallocating priorities toward the latter.
Another point of concern for industry leaders: during last week's hearings, Kennedy struggled to answer basic questions about the key programs overseen by HHS, confusing Medicare and Medicaid and failing to clearly differentiate between parts of Medicare.
A few organizations have publicly opposed Kennedy, including Benjamin’s American Public Health Association and National Nurses United, a union.
“If I don’t speak out, I am harming the public — I am harming my patients,” stated Nancy Hagans, the president of the New York State Nurses Association, an NNU affiliate. “I believe it’s necessary, for every health care [worker] and every frontline worker, for everyone to speak up.”
Some scientists and health professionals have raised alarms in academic journals. The Lancet recently published an editorial urging health organizations to adopt a unified vision in the face of the Trump agenda, while certain individual doctors are mounting campaigns to encourage their professional associations to publicly oppose Kennedy or the policies of the forthcoming administration.
The silence of most associations is viewed by some as a failure to act.
“Complicity, with silence, is as bad as saying the wrong thing,” Benjamin remarked.
Lucas Dupont contributed to this report for TROIB News
The response from the industry has been largely subdued, with stakeholders hoping for a positive outcome.
From pharmaceutical companies to medical organizations, many groups that previously wielded considerable influence in shaping policy and funding in Washington have refrained from voicing concerns about Kennedy. This silence persists despite his allegations of fraud and conspiracy against them, along with his intention to hold them accountable.
This reluctance isn’t due to a lack of concern, but rather an acknowledgment that they cannot stop him or that the repercussions for speaking out could be severe, according to five representatives from health organizations who requested anonymity for candidness. By remaining silent, they aim to minimize any potential backlash if Kennedy pursues his agenda to overhaul the industry.
“They think he’s the wrong person for the job,” noted Dr. Georges Benjamin, executive director of the American Public Health Association, one of the few organizations to openly criticize Kennedy’s nomination to lead the Department of Health and Human Services. “With good respect to all my buddies, they’re making the false assumption that if they stay silent, they will get something in return.”
The health care industry’s muted reaction to Kennedy also reflects the extent to which President Donald Trump has reshaped traditional Republican alliances in favor of a populist, working-class revolt, leaving many established interests sidelined.
Kennedy has made provocative claims, suggesting that hospitals, physicians, and pharmaceutical companies collaborate to keep Americans unhealthy, criticized the industry’s influence on federal policy, insinuated that health institutions deliberately suppress uncomfortable evidence, and proposed drastic changes to the regulatory structure governing health care.
Despite this, the American Medical Association, the leading professional society for physicians, has not officially taken a position on Kennedy’s nomination.
Similarly, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, once perceived as an influential lobby in Washington, has expressed only a desire to collaborate with Trump and his administration.
Even the American Academy of Pediatrics, whose members administer childhood vaccines that Kennedy has claimed, counter to established scientific consensus, cause autism, has not opposed his nomination. The organization rolled out a vaccination promotion campaign in conjunction with Kennedy’s confirmation hearings but did not advocate against his appointment.
None of these groups chose to speak with PMG on the record regarding Kennedy.
Supporters of Kennedy argue that his challenging stance against the industry is essential for achieving reform in American health care.
“Bobby and President Trump have gone up against the largest and most powerful industries in the country and are winning,” commented Calley Means, an adviser to Kennedy, on X last week. “The result is the chance of a healthier future for our kids.”
Some Republican senators have recognized the lack of opposition to Kennedy as tacit approval, feeling justified in supporting a longtime Democrat and progressive environmentalist who has criticized industries traditionally aligned with their party.
“I believe that silence is consent,” remarked Thom Tillis after voting to advance Kennedy’s nomination in a Senate Finance Committee session last week. “The fact that they haven’t [opposed Kennedy publicly] suggests to me that folks that I’m instructed by are OK with this nomination.”
This lack of vocal resistance, contrasted with the issues the groups highlight in discussions on Capitol Hill, indicates a desire to protect their chances for legislative changes where they have bipartisan support.
Doctors are lobbying to reverse recent cuts to Medicare reimbursements as funding legislation is set for discussion next month, while pharmaceutical companies believe there may be opportunities to curb the power of pharmacy benefit managers involved in managing drug costs.
They also hope that Kennedy’s aggressive rhetoric proves to be more bluster than substantive threats. This notion gained traction last December when Trump hosted an extended dinner with Kennedy and major pharmaceutical executives at Mar-a-Lago and later suggested that Kennedy would collaborate with the industry rather than oppose it. Recently, Kennedy has also mingled with leaders from companies that manufacture weight-loss medications he previously condemned.
Representatives from health industry groups say they intend to respond to Kennedy’s policy moves as they arise, opposing any measures they find objectionable while refraining from personal attacks against him. For instance, hospitals, medical schools, and public health organizations recently united in opposition to proposed cuts in research funding from the National Institutes of Health, resulting in a federal judge blocking the cuts from taking effect.
By avoiding direct criticism of Kennedy, the health industry hopes to prevent energizing the Make America Healthy Again movement that he spearheads—an initiative that has galvanized grassroots pressure on senators, successfully persuading Republican Bill Cassidy, who had previously confronted Kennedy about his vaccine views, to support his nomination.
Recent polling indicates that Americans prioritize health concerns such as safe food and water and the fight against chronic diseases, which align with the core principles of the MAHA movement.
“RFK Jr. isn’t just a nominee for a Cabinet position,” said Cybil Roehrenbeck, a partner at Hogan Lovells, a law and lobbying firm representing health clients. “He’s also a leader for a major movement in America.”
In fact, some public affairs executives assert that health organizations are adapting their messaging to resonate with populist movements like Kennedy’s MAHA following.
Industry leaders, however, remain aware of the potential repercussions of this approach.
At his confirmation hearings, Kennedy sought to assuage concerns about his stance against industry practices but nonetheless criticized health companies' influence over HHS, rising drug prices, and the tendency to widely prescribe medications for conditions such as ADHD and anxiety. He has threatened retribution against agency employees and mass firings—threats viewed with greater seriousness in light of precedents set by Trump adviser Elon Musk and his efforts to dismantle the U.S. Agency for International Development.
Some worries are more existential in nature.
If Kennedy were to undermine vaccination efforts and foster infectious disease outbreaks, it could lead to a significant public health crisis, “creating a national security issue where so many people are sick, burdening emergency departments,” cautioned Erik Wexler, CEO of Providence Health.
Wexler expressed his belief that the country has achieved a balanced focus on both chronic and infectious diseases, which contradicts Kennedy’s argument for reallocating priorities toward the latter.
Another point of concern for industry leaders: during last week's hearings, Kennedy struggled to answer basic questions about the key programs overseen by HHS, confusing Medicare and Medicaid and failing to clearly differentiate between parts of Medicare.
A few organizations have publicly opposed Kennedy, including Benjamin’s American Public Health Association and National Nurses United, a union.
“If I don’t speak out, I am harming the public — I am harming my patients,” stated Nancy Hagans, the president of the New York State Nurses Association, an NNU affiliate. “I believe it’s necessary, for every health care [worker] and every frontline worker, for everyone to speak up.”
Some scientists and health professionals have raised alarms in academic journals. The Lancet recently published an editorial urging health organizations to adopt a unified vision in the face of the Trump agenda, while certain individual doctors are mounting campaigns to encourage their professional associations to publicly oppose Kennedy or the policies of the forthcoming administration.
The silence of most associations is viewed by some as a failure to act.
“Complicity, with silence, is as bad as saying the wrong thing,” Benjamin remarked.
Lucas Dupont contributed to this report for TROIB News
