RFK Jr. Clashes With Senators in Fiery Hearing

Kennedy was combative on Thursday.
Reuters
By Yuval Rosenberg and Michael Rainey

Happy Thursday! The NFL season is about to kick off, as the defending Super Bowl champion Philadelphia Eagles face the perpetually chaotic Dallas Cowboys. But that clash may seem tame compared to the action in the Senate Finance Committee today. Here's what you should know.

RFK Jr. Gets Grilled by Democrats - and Some Republicans - in Dramatic Senate Hearing

Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. faced a bipartisan grilling Thursday at a contentious, three-hour-long hearing of the Senate Finance Committee, where outraged Democrats and some skeptical Republicans challenged him over the changes to vaccine policy he has overseen and the turmoil he has created at the nation's top health agencies.

In a hearing that was supposedly about President Trump's healthcare plans, the questioning frequently turned into fiery exchanges of shouting as Democrats and a few Republicans questioned Kennedy's leadership and criticized changes that will make it more difficult for many Americans to get the Covid vaccine.

A combative Kennedy aggressively defended his actions and agenda as head of the Department of Health and Human Services, including his removal of 17 members of a vaccine advisory panel and his push to oust Dr. Susan Monarez, the recently installed head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Kennedy again pushed misinformation about the safety and efficacy of vaccines, and he claimed that health officials had misled the public throughout the Covid pandemic.

"We were lied to about everything," he said.

Democrats tore into Kennedy right away: "Every single day, there's been an action that endangers the health and wellness of families," Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon, the top Democrat on the committee, said in his opening remarks. "Robert Kennedy has elevated conspiracy theorists, crackpots and grifters to make life or death decisions about Americans' health care."

Democrats criticized the healthcare cuts in the recently passed Republican megabill and said that Kennedy has allowed turmoil to engulf HHS through cuts to personnel and programs. A report issued by Wyden and Sen. Angela Alsobrooks of Maryland laid out what they called the "costs, chaos and corruption" under Kennedy, including areas where he has gone back on sworn testimony and commitments he made during his confirmation process.

In one sharp exchange, Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia asked Kennedy if he accepts the fact that a million Americans died from Covid. Kennedy said he doesn't know how many died. "I don't think anybody knows that because there was so much data chaos coming out of CDC..." Kennedy said, and he alleged that the data under the Biden administration was dismal and politicized.

Warner was incredulous, his voice rising in anger. "The secretary of Health and Human Services doesn't know how many Americans died from Covid, doesn't know if the vaccine helped prevent any deaths, and you are sitting as secretary of Health and Human Services? How can you be that ignorant?"

A dozen Democrats on the committee called for Kennedy to resign, saying he poses a danger to Americans' health. "By discarding well-established science related to vaccines, elevating conspiracy theorists and self-interested charlatans to positions of public trust, and presiding over the largest cut to American health care in history, Robert Kennedy has reinforced every fear families had about him," they said in a statement.

Kennedy fired back repeatedly, accusing Democrats of allowing a rise in chronic illnesses and of aligning with the pharmaceutical industry and accepting its political donations.

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt defended Kennedy, saying the administration "is addressing root causes of chronic disease, embracing transparency in government, and championing gold-standard science. Only the Democrats could attack that commonsense effort."

Some Republicans confronted Kennedy, too: GOP Sens. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, Thom Tillis of North Carolina and John Barrasso of Wyoming expressed skepticism about Kennedy's leadership.

Cassidy, a doctor and head of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, honed in on an HHS decision under Kennedy to cancel $500 million in contracts for mRNA vaccine research. He noted that Kennedy agreed with the idea that President Donald Trump deserved a Nobel Prize for Operation Warp Speed, the 2020 initiative to develop a Covid vaccine - but that he continues to criticize that vaccine and the technology used to create it, a seeming contradiction.

Cassidy finished his questioning by reading messages he had gotten complaining about the new complexity in getting vaccine shots. "I would say effectively we're denying people vaccine," Cassidy said.

"You're wrong," Kennedy responded.

In questioning by Tillis, Kennedy said he agreed with a claim that the mRNA Covid vaccine "caused serious harm, including death, particularly in young people."

Disputes about what happened at the CDC: In an op-ed for The Wall Street Journal Thursday, Monarez accused Kennedy of "a deliberate effort to weaken America's public-health system and vaccine protections." She said she "was told to preapprove the recommendations of a vaccine advisory panel newly filled with people who have publicly expressed antivaccine rhetoric" and was fired after 29 days on the job "because I held the line and insisted on rigorous scientific review."

Kennedy disputed Monarez's account and said she was lying. "I told her she had to resign because I asked her, 'Are you a trustworthy person?' and she said 'No,'" Kennedy claimed. He did confirm, though, that he asked Monarez to fire some top scientists at the CDC. Monarez has said she was fired after refusing to fire those staffers without cause.

The bottom line: Television news producers may have been thankful for the few hours of fireworks that the hearing provided, but it's not clear anything will come of the pressure and criticism lawmakers piled on Kennedy. "The hearing offered no sign that Kennedy intends to slow down his efforts to upend the agencies he oversees," STAT's Daniel Payne and Isabella Cueto noted.

Trump Asks Supreme Court for Quick Review of Tariff Policy

The Trump administration has formally asked the Supreme Court for a speedy review of a lower court ruling that rejected much of President Trump's tariff policy.

In a filing late Wednesday, Solicitor General John Sauer asked the high court to expedite its review of last week's ruling by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that found that Trump had exceeded his authority in declaring a national emergency as part of his effort to transform U.S. trade policy. Sauer asked the Supreme Court to consider the administration's appeal quickly "to the maximum extent feasible, given the enormous importance of quickly confirming the full legal standing of the president's tariffs."

Last week's appeals court decision focused on what Trump called "reciprocal tariffs" - across-the-board import taxes on all goods from most U.S. trade partners around the world. Trump justified the imposition of the tariffs by declaring that trade deficits are a national emergency and then claiming he had the authority to change policy under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act.

The appeals court ruled that setting tariffs is a "core Congressional power." The ruling does not apply to tariffs Trump has imposed on specific sectors such as steel and autos.

Those opposing Trump's reciprocal tariffs are also hoping for a quick resolution. "These unlawful tariffs are inflicting serious harm on small businesses and jeopardizing their survival," said Jeffrey Schwab of Liberty Justice Center, per the BBC. "We hope for a prompt resolution of this case for our clients."

Tariff refunds? If the Supreme Court upholds the appeals court ruling, the federal government could be required to refund some of the import tax revenues collected this year. The U.S. Customs and Border Protection says it has collected more than $100 billion in tariffs under the IEEPA as of August 24.

"We're talking about hundreds of billions of dollars potentially in refunds affecting thousands and thousands of importers," trade lawyer Luis Arandia told the Associated Press. "Unwinding all that will be the largest administrative effort in U.S. government history."

In typically exaggerated terms, Trump has warned that ending the tariffs would greatly harm the U.S. "Without tariffs, and all of the TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS we have already taken in, our Country would be completely destroyed, and our military power would be instantly obliterated," he wrote on his social media platform.

According to the Treasury Department, the U.S has collected $183 billion in "customs and certain excise taxes" as of August 28. Analysts at Goldman Sachs estimate that U.S. businesses have absorbed most of the cost of the tariffs, though they expect the cost to be shifted to U.S. consumers over the coming months.

Quote of the Day

"The only way I can see for the US government to reduce its outstanding debt in the near term is to use the tariff revenue. If all of the sudden the tariff revenue will not be there, that is a problem."

− Andy Brenner, head of international fixed income at NatAlliance Securities, as quoted in a Financial Times article describing how bond traders are now "banking on revenue from Donald Trump's tariffs to bolster US public finances, in a sharp switch from earlier this year when his trade war triggered a brutal sell-off in the Treasury market."

The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office projected that Trump's tariffs will generate $4 trillion in revenue over a decade if they remain in place - money that will help offset the projected $4.1 trillion cost of the package of tax and spending cuts Republicans enacted.

Thierry Wizman, a global rates strategist at Macquarie Group, told the Financial Times that a potential court nullification of many of Trump's tariffs may result in lower inflation and stronger growth. "But," he added, "if the focus is on debt and deficits at that time, the bond market may riot."

Trump's Fed Pick Plans to Keep His White House Job

Stephen Miran, President Trump's pick to fill an open spot on the Federal Reserve's board of governors, told lawmakers at his confirmation hearing Thursday that he plans to return to his current White House job when his term at the Fed comes to an end early next year.

If confirmed, Miran, who currently heads Trump's Council of Economic Advisers, would fill in for former governor Adriana Kugler until the end of January. Kugler stepped down suddenly from the Fed board in August, just five months before the end of her term. Miran said he would take unpaid leave from the White House while taking her place.

No administration official has served on the Fed board since reforms instituted by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1935.

Miran attempted to reassure lawmakers that, despite maintaining a clear link to the White House, he would act independently at the Fed. "My opinions and decisions will be based on my analysis of the macroeconomy and what's best for its long-term stewardship," he said.

Democratic Sen. Andy Kim questioned Miran's vow of independence. "You could very well be continuing to act in a way that is in the political interests of the president, because you know he is going to be your future boss again at the White House," Kim said. "Why do you even want this job at the Fed for four months, if you're just hedging your bets and just continuing to hold your position at the White House?"

Sen. Elizabeth Warren was more sharply critical. "No one - not the American public, not investors here at home, not the worldwide financial markets - will trust him as an independent voice," the Massachusetts Democrat said. "Every claim he makes and every vote he takes will be tainted with the suspicion that he isn't an honest broker, but that he is Donald Trump's puppet."

The Trump administration hopes to push Miran through the confirmation process before the next Fed meeting on September 16 and 17. Trump has been outspoken in his calls for lower interest rates, and Miran could play a key role in voting to reduce the Fed benchmark rate at the three remaining central bank meetings this year.

Judge Rules Trump's 'Pocket Rescission' Is Illegal

A federal judge ruled late Wednesday that the Trump administration's attempt to cancel billions of dollars in foreign aid funds allocated by Congress is likely illegal.

U.S. District Judge Amir Ali ordered the administration to release $11.5 billion in foreign aid funds by the end of September, the last month of the 2025 fiscal year. Administration officials led by Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought had planned to let those funds go unspent while allowing them to effectively disappear once the year ends - a maneuver known as a pocket rescission.

"To be clear, no one disputes that Defendants have significant discretion in how to spend the funds at issue, and the Court is not directing Defendants to make payments to any particular recipients," Ali wrote in his decision. "But Defendants do not have any discretion as to whether to spend the funds."

Ali noted that the case is important for political and practical reasons and recognized that his decision is likely not the final word, saying "definitive higher court guidance now will be instructive."

The ruling comes just days after President Trump announced that he plans to withhold $4.9 billion in foreign aid funds provided by Congress, sparking bipartisan criticism from lawmakers.

The administration said it would appeal the decision.

Fiscal News Roundup

Views and Analysis