Latest in Health & Science News
Get up-to-date health & science news from our reporters
Bill Nye, Rep. Ivey fight proposed NASA cuts
Hundreds of advocates urged Congress to block a proposed 47% cut to NASA’s science research funding.
read more
Pfizer strikes drug pricing deal as Trump announces TrumpRx
Pfizer leads with discounted medications for Medicaid, but experts say broader impact remains to be seen.
read more
Michigan Democrat to introduce articles of impeachment against RFK Jr
Congresswoman Haley Stevens announced Thursday that she will “lead the charge to remove [Kennedy] from office” and plans to file articles of impeachment against the Health and Human Services Secretary.
read more
Experts Warn Current Fentanyl Legislation Fails to Address Root Problem: Fentanyl
Bill in Congress targets fentanyl-related substances (FRS) but illegally manufactured fentanyl (IMF) is far more prevalent and kills more people.
read more
Photo Gallery: ‘Stand Up for Science’ rally draws lawmakers, Bill Nye and thousands more to National Mall
Protesters gathered to support a science community they see as under siege amid the Trump administration’s recent slashing of government-funded research.
read moreSCOTUS debates a death-row inmate’s request for DNA testing
DNA evidence — including scrapings underneath Harrison’s fingernails and a loose hair wrapped around one of her fingers — was recovered but has never been tested.
A Texas statute permits DNA testing only where favorable results would prove innocence, not ineligibility for a death sentence. On Monday, justices heard arguments over whether Gutierrez has the legal right, or standing, to request the post-conviction DNA testing.
The focus of the question was not whether Gutierrez was innocent, but whether he should face the death penalty. His execution was put on hold in 2024 — the second time the Supreme Court halted his execution — after the Court ruled in the similar case Reed v. Goertz that Rodney Reed had the legal right to sue Texas over its refusal to grant him access to post-conviction DNA testing.
For the last 14 years, Texas courts have denied Gutierrez’s requests to seek postconviction DNA testing of the crime scene and autopsy evidence to prove that his limited culpability in the murder would render him ineligible for the death penalty. They did so on the basis that Gutierrez did not have the legal right, or standing, to challenge the constitutionality of a provision of Texas’s postconviction DNA testing statute, which permits testing affecting an inmate’s conviction but not his punishment.
Anne E. Fisher, representing the petitioner, argued that certain procedures in the Texas post-conviction statute known as Chapter 64 that blocked post-conviction DNA testing were unconstitutional and that Gutierrez should not have been denied DNA testing.
“It’s not Mr. Gutierrez who keeps switching his position,” Fisher said. “We are simply reacting to the brand new arguments that respondents have come up with late in the process as to why we don’t have standing.”
To show that Gutierrez is ineligible for the death penalty, Fisher said she would need to show that he was not in the house and that he was not a “major participant” in the death of Harrison. Obtaining DNA testing would be one component of doing so.
Chief Justice of the United States John Roberts questioned whether a “tiny thimbleful of additional evidence” would help Gutierrez and Justice Samuel Alito pointed out that “at most, it could show that other people were there.” But Justice Brett Kavanaugh seemed among several justices sympathetic to Gutierrez. He observed that even if the district attorney refused to grant Gutierrez access to post-conviction DNA testing, he would still have the legal right to sue.
“I don’t see how we can say something’s not redressable just because the prosecutor is going to say, ‘I’m not going to comply with a court order,’” Kavanaugh said. “You know, if President Nixon said, ‘I’m not going to come turn over the tapes no matter what,’ you wouldn’t say, ‘Oh, I guess we don’t have standing to hear the executive privilege case.’”
However, William F. Cole, representing the respondents, argued that Reed v. Goertz was applied correctly and Gutierrez did not have standing to challenge the constitutionality of the DNA testing statute that permits testing affecting an inmate’s conviction but not his punishment. He also argued that Gutierrez had not challenged all the procedures needed to get the remedy for his injury — the denial of access to DNA testing evidence.
“That’s binary,” Cole said about Gutierrez’s assertion of his injury. “Either you get it or you don’t.”
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson seemed particularly interested in clarifying the theory of redressability in the case, while Justice Sonia Sotomayor seemed to lean in favor of Gutierrez, pushing back on Cole’s argument.
“Don’t you want to know you’re convicting the right person for the right thing? I mean, he’s going to spend time in jail no matter what because he admits to being at least an accessory to the robbery or a part of the robbery,” Sotomayor asked. “But at what point does this legal maneuvering become counterproductive to the state? If you are sure of your conviction and your theory, why not do the testing?”
Cole responded that Gutierrez previously made a “strategic choice” not to undergo DNA testing when it was available to him and that even if the evidence were exculpatory, it would not change Gutierrez’s sentence because he is still eligible for the death penalty.
The justices appeared to be divided. The Supreme Court challenged both lawyers by posing hypothetical situations and clarifying questions over issues of redressability and standing.
But to Miriam Becker-Cohen, the case appeared straightforward. Becker-Cohen is the lead author of an amicus brief in Gutierrez v. Saenz from the Constitutional Accountability Center, an organization focused on examining the whole Constitution’s history to uphold progressive values at its core.
Becker-Cohen emphasized that the case boils down to the simple question of whether a death-row inmate has the right to go to court and say that the DNA testing statute violates their right to a fundamentally fair process under the Constitution under the due process clause.
“This case isn’t going to decide whether or not he gets the death penalty. It’s not going to decide whether or not he’s exonerated or something,” Becker-Cohen said. “It’s really just a narrow issue: it’s whether he gets into court in the first place, which seems like such a fundamental thing that he should be entitled to under our concept of federal standing law and jurisdiction.”
Parents, lawmakers and experts debate the fentanyl crisis and Trump’s tariffs
WASHINGTON – The Senate Judiciary Committee met Tuesday to tackle the fentanyl epidemic and the persistently high opioid-related U.S. death rate as the Trump administration introduced trade measures targeting illegal drug trafficking networks in Mexico, Canada and China.
Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) said the Trump administration framed the tariffs as an anti-fentanyl measure, not a trade policy. He said China is under pressure to curb precursor chemical exports, which often reach Mexico, where drug cartels design them into counterfeit pills.
President Donald Trump planned to impose a 25% tariff on imports from Mexico and Canada but has delayed the tariff hike by one month after negotiating with leaders of both countries on Monday.
On Tuesday, a 10% hike on Chinese imports took effect at midnight, with Trump saying the move would “protect Americans” against fentanyl production and trafficking.
The committee debated reclassifying fentanyl from a Schedule II to a Schedule I drug under the Controlled Substances Act. The change would place fentanyl in the most restrictive drug category.
“I believe that [re-scheduling] will increase penalties for trafficking and distribution. It also streamlines prosecution by removing the burden of proving whether a particular fentanyl analog is harmful. It would be illegal by default, and it would give authorities greater flexibility as well to target emerging fentanyl analogs before they flood the market,” said Jaime Puerta, President and Co-Founder of Victims of Illicit Drugs.
Overdose deaths linked to synthetic opioids, primarily illicit fentanyl, accounted for an estimated 74,702 deaths in 2023, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The committee heard testimony from parents who have lost their children to fentanyl overdoses.
“My son Daniel’s death is one of countless tragedies,” said Puerta, who lost his 16-year-old son in 2020. “His story is a call to action. He made a mistake, and the price was his life.”
Senators on both sides of the aisle said tackling the issue requires bipartisan action.
“I’m sick and tired of excuses being made, and people dying as a result, and I think it’s time for us, on a bipartisan basis, to find things we agree with,” Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said.
Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-Mo.) asked Cecilia Farfán, an expert on organized crime, if Mexico is doing enough to curb fentanyl production and trafficking.
“There’s definitely more that can be done by Mexico,” she said. “I think working closer with U.S. counterparts and also having these diagnoses of the connection between … arms trafficking and drug trafficking [will] really benefit communities on both sides of the border.”
She also emphasized that addressing the fentanyl crisis requires not only targeting its supply but also scrutinizing the firearms industry in the U.S.
Lawmakers pointed out how firearms trafficking fuels cartel operations, further complicating U.S.-Mexico cooperation on fentanyl enforcement.
Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) said that Mexico has “one legal gun store” and “according to [The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives] data, up to 500,000 U.S.-sourced firearms are trafficked into Mexico every year.”
Farfán told Medill News Service that these “are challenging times in the bilateral relationship,” and she understands that not everyone shares her point of view. But she said she was there to emphasize that if “you are serious about saving lives, you need cooperation.”
“The fentanyl market is not an isolated illicit market, it’s very much linked to the firearms trafficking market,” Farfán said. “If the crime is transnational, shouldn’t the solution also be transnational?”
Photo Gallery: Senators grill RFK Jr. about “safety” in vaccines, mifepristone, and more
WASHINGTON — Senators questioned Robert Kennedy Jr. on vaccines, abortion, obesity and more on Thursday during the second day of his confirmation hearings to lead the Department of Health and Human Services.
Kennedy’s body language communicated greater ease than Wednesday’s hearing. He sat forward in his seat, his hands clasped on the desk. His gestures, too, were larger. As senators asked questions, Kennedy alternated between dodging and addressing their concerns. Several times, the committee chair banged the gavel, marking the end of each senator’s five minutes to question Kennedy.
Democrats and several Republicans scrutinized Kennedy’s views, with senators from both parties referencing research documenting the efficacy of various vaccines and medications. They questioned Kennedy’s past allegations about a link between autism and vaccines. One senator also cited studies on the safety of mifepristone, a drug often used in medical abortions.
Sen. Angela Alsobrooks (D-Md.) asks Kennedy to elaborate on a 2021 comment about how Black people should have different vaccine schedules than white people because their immune systems are “better than ours.” She adds, “Your voice would be a voice that parents would listen to. That is so dangerous. I will be voting against your nomination because your views are dangerous to our state and to our country.” (Valerie Chu/MNS)
Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) asks how many studies Kennedy needs to see before deeming a medication safe. “With mifepristone, President Trump has not chosen a policy,” Kennedy says after several attempts to qualify the question. (Valerie Chu/MNS)
Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) questions Kennedy about a previous tweet about 9/11 and his past comments that people in power lie. (Valerie Chu/MNS)
Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) questions one of Kennedy’s previous comments comparing pedophilia in the Catholic church to the administration of vaccines. “You’re not questioning science,” Murphy says. “You’ve made up your mind.” (Valerie Chu/MNS)
In response to questions from Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), Kennedy says that he would not support conducting federal research on fetal tissues from abortions and that he would not support gender affirming surgery for minors. “It’s unconscionable,” Kennedy says. (Valerie Chu/MNS)
Kennedy agrees with Sen. Jim Banks (R-Ind.) that “absolutely,” obesity is a public health and national security risk. Banks reassures Kennedy that he has his “full support.” (Valerie Chu/MNS)
Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) watches the hearing during a particularly intense moment, at times correcting statements Kennedy and other senators make on topics such as abortion. He is the chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. (Valerie Chu/MNS)
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) asks about the health of Native American populations. Kennedy says he would make sure the department’s decisions are conscious of the First Nations. He emphasizes focusing on telemedicine and AI. (Valerie Chu/MNS)
Robert Kennedy Jr. exits the room after the hearing ends. (Valerie Chu/MNS)
One point of contention was what it takes for a drug to be considered safe, and whether Kennedy would retract his past comments casting doubt on the safety of certain vaccines and medications. Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.), Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), Sen. Angela Alsobrooks (D-Md.), Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) and several more senators all asked variations of that question — each focused on different topics.
“If we were to talk about peer-reviewed, replicable studies of a medication, would you say that you needed 10 trusted studies to get the same conclusion? Fifteen? Twenty trusted studies?” Baldwin asked. “What’s your number?”
Kennedy responded, “it completely depends on the kind of study you’re talking about.” Then, he added that on mifepristone, Trump has not chosen a policy, and he would implement that policy.
Many of Kennedy’s other statements were similar. He defended his previous statements, said he would evaluate the scientific evidence and stuck to that statement when senators cited specific scientific evidence.
Sen. Angela Alsobrooks (D-Md.) asked Kennedy to elaborate on a 2021 comment about how Black people should have different vaccine schedules than white people because their immune systems are “better than ours.”
At the hearing, Kennedy defended his earlier comments, saying that there was a series of studies which showed “differences in reactions to different products by different races.”
Alsobrooks shot back: “Your voice would be a voice that parents would listen to. That is so dangerous. I will be voting against your nomination because your views are dangerous to our state and to our country.” Several people in the hearing room began clapping.
Three hours later, Kennedy’s confirmation hearing ended.
“Thank you, Bobby!” several people shouted from the crowd as Kennedy shook hands with various senators before leaving the room. A group of people wearing lab coats in the back row watched silently.
Watch: Past comments on vaccines and abortion dominate RFK Jr. confirmation hearing
WASHINGTON – Robert F. Kennedy Jr., President Trump’s nominee for Secretary of Health and Human Services, appeared before the Senate Committee on Finance on Wednesday.
Kennedy’s previous comments on the efficacy of vaccines raised concern from Senate Democrats, and their questioning focused on this topic.
Watch the video report here:
RFK Jr. dodges questions on Medicaid, vaccines at confirmation hearing
WASHINGTON — When Robert F. Kennedy Jr. entered the room for his confirmation hearing Wednesday, his supporters in the audience rose to their feet, applauding and chanting “Bobby!” as doctors in the two front rows remained seated, mostly expressionless.
Police officers later removed two protesters who shouted over the proceedings. One said “You liar!” when Kennedy denied being “anti-vaccine,” and another interrupted Kennedy as he defended a 2021 petition requesting the Food and Drug Administration revoke authorization for COVID-19 vaccines.
As Kennedy sat between this divided crowd and a similarly divided Senate Finance Committee, he defended his oftentimes controversial and contradictory views on vaccines, Medicaid, abortion and other key health issues. Kennedy faces an uphill battle for Senate approval as President Donald Trump’s pick to lead the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
“We will create an honest, unbiased, science-driven HHS, accountable to the president, to Congress and to the American people,” he said in his opening statement. “We will reverse the chronic disease epidemic and put the nation back on the road to health.”
Police officers removed a protester at Kennedy’s confirmation hearing as the nominee defended his previous skepticism about COVID-19 vaccines. (Valerie Chu/MNS)
If confirmed, Kennedy would oversee programs like Medicare and Medicaid as well as various agencies responsible for health-related research and regulations. The former environmental lawyer said he would practice “radical transparency” and publicly release information from those agencies upon request.
Kennedy expressed support for addressing hospital staffing shortages with artificial intelligence, and he said there was a need to “experiment with public programs” like Medicaid to improve patient outcomes while providing more transparency and accountability. The nominee also praised the “entrepreneurs,” “disruptors” and “innovators” he said would be attracted to HHS under his leadership.
However, Kennedy did not directly answer questions from Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) on whether he supports Trump’s freezes to new federal funding and regulations, and he did not identify which agencies he would target when firing employees.
“I will commit to not firing anybody who’s doing their job,” he said, adding that he would define that standard “based on my opinion.”
Though he has falsely linked vaccines to autism, Kennedy said Wednesday that they “have a critical role in health care,” and he claimed he supports the measles and polio vaccines. The nominee also distanced himself from a measles outbreak in Samoa that killed 83 people in late 2019 — several months after he visited the region and met with anti-vaccine activists who called for an end to measles vaccinations.
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) blasted Kennedy for writing the foreword to a 2021 book questioning the effectiveness of vaccines. That book was written by the Children’s Health Defense, a group that Kennedy chaired at the time. The organization opposes public health measures like vaccines and fluoride in drinking water.
“This is the profile of someone who chases money and influence wherever they lead, even if that may mean the tragic deaths of children and other vulnerable people,” Wyden said. “Mr. Kennedy is fond of saying he’s not making recommendations about whether parents should vaccinate their children. He’s just asking questions and giving people choices. It’s a slippery tactic to dodge any real responsibility for his words and actions.”
Gordon Evans, a retired public works engineer, attended the hearing in a shirt reading, “RFK Jr. ‘24 for President.” (Valerie Chu/MNS)
Some doctors and medical groups around the country have opposed Kennedy’s nomination because of his past statements on vaccines. The Committee to Protect Health Care started a letter opposing Kennedy’s nomination that its executive director, Dr. Rob Davidson, said has already gained more than 18,000 signatures from verified physicians.
“We feel that vaccination is a huge part of our ability to maintain the health and safety of our patients in our communities,” Davidson told Medill News Service. “So someone who has made a career of undermining vaccines, of spouting misinformation and disinformation about them, and who would be in charge of an agency that can halt vaccine availability and certainly can undermine vaccination programs just simply by having a large mouthpiece … for those reasons and others, we’re in opposition.”
Senators also pressed Kennedy on his shifting views about abortion. Kennedy expressed support for abortion rights during his presidential campaign but repeatedly said Wednesday that “every abortion is a tragedy.”
Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.) defended the effectiveness of mifepristone, a drug often used in medical abortions, and she expressed concern about Kennedy deferring to Trump and enacting policies that would reduce women’s access to health care.
“When was it that you decided to sell out the values you’ve had your whole life in order to be given power by President Trump?” Hassan said.
Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.) pointed out the difference between Kennedy’s previous support of bodily autonomy and his comments on abortion at Wednesday’s hearing. (Valerie Chu/MNS)
Kat McClanahan and Mandy Feindt attended the hearing dressed in white shirts with a message in bold red reading “Red Hill Families Need RFK Jr.” Feindt, who serves in the Army, said she attended to represent her children as well as other military service members and families harmed by the Red Hill water contamination crisis in Hawaii.
“This is not a political issue for us,” Feindt said. “We came here to say even though we’re from Hawaii and our Hawaii congressional delegation does not support RFK, we as Red-Hill-impacted families, we want someone in this position who will prioritize the health and safety of our families and our children in particular — and I know that RFK does.”
McClanahan added that their families have struggled to receive proper medical care after the harm caused when jet fuel leaked into Hawaii’s drinking water. She said that after reading about how Kennedy fought polluters who contaminated the Hudson River, she was excited for him to prioritize toxic exposures.
Brandon Anderson, another supporter at the hearing, said he gravitated toward Kennedy’s recent presidential campaign because the candidate emphasized tackling chronic disease. He said his own health challenges resulting from pharmaceutical drugs made him more wary of America’s chronic disease epidemic.
Donning a “Make America Healthy Again” cap, Anderson said he appreciated what he called Kennedy’s desire to “heal the divide” between Democrats and Republicans by focusing on public health.
“Health affects everybody,” he said. “Like Kennedy said earlier, we don’t have Republican kids or Democrat kids. They’re children of our country, you know?”
Democrats warn: Veterans will suffer from Trump’s federal funding freeze
WASHINGTON — Democrats on the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee Tuesday aired grievances over President Donald Trump’s sweeping order to freeze federal funding, a move that began to gut health care programs essential to the VA’s $300 billion budget.
“I’m getting emails from health care groups in Connecticut whose funds have been frozen,” said Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), the committee’s ranking member, said at the hearing. “We’re talking here about community care potentially getting chaos and confusion as a result of this freezing of funds.”
The White House Office of Management and Budget first sent a private memo to federal agencies late Monday night, freezing all federal aid, including grants and public loans. Trump also issued a federal hiring freeze on Friday, potentially preventing several critical health care roles from being filled in an already understaffed VA.
During Tuesday’s committee hearing, Democratic lawmakers were quick to blast the president’s latest salvo of executive actions in his second week back in the White House.
Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), a combat veteran, cited likely impacts to veterans in her state who rely on VA resources such as community-based suicide prevention efforts, rural veterans telehealth and transportation services. She also worried that staff shortages would not be filled for nurses and aides at veterans homes.
“I hope that my Republican colleagues and the courts have the spine to stand up to Trump in the face of this cruel, chaotic and unconstitutional order that hurts everyday Americans,” said Duckworth.
Republicans failed to defend Trump’s actions, however they tried to steer the topic towards the VA’s long standing problems.
“The Veterans Health Administration is the largest hospital system in the country. Why do you think the VA is so bureaucratic?” said Sen. Jim Banks (R-Ind.), in a question to the panel of speakers.
Tuesday’s hearing was meant to seek strategies to improve the VA’s Community Care Network.
The initiative, first established in 2018 as an outgrowth of the VA to administer further community and private care options for veterans, had since been mired in troubles. Program members complained of long wait times, inconsistent quality care and eligibility confusion, among a host of other issues.
“After leaving the military, I sought mental health care through the VA,” Eric Golnick, a U.S. Navy veteran, told the committee. “I was fortunate to see a psychiatrist relatively quickly, but it took over a year to see a therapist.”
Paige Marg spoke about her struggles to find a long-term physician under the VA’s health plan for her husband, a veteran who has suffered from intense depression following his end of service.
“It’s heartbreaking to see your spouse become a shell of a person to repeatedly ask for help to maintain prescription compliance for more than a decade and to not miss appointments, only to be discarded from the entity that should be providing treatment and care that he earned through his military service and sacrifice.”
In a rare showing of bipartisanship in the meeting, many lawmakers agreed that the VA’s community care networks required clearer communication, standardized practices and coordination between the two systems of the VA, its basic program and the community care network it funds.
Duckworth, who lost both legs in 2004 when a rocket-propelled grenade downed the helicopter she was flying during the Iraq War, has the VA’s program to thank for one of her prosthetic legs. Her other leg was from the community care network.
“So it’s really important to me that (the two systems) talk to each other, because otherwise it makes it very difficult to walk,” Duckworth said.
Committee leaders ultimately laid out that the future of any legislation for veteran care hinges on bipartisan support.
“This cause must be bipartisan, and it must be immediate. There’s no question about the need to speed, streamline and safeguard and access to community care referrals to the kind of providers that are necessary to prevent the tragedies,” Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) said.
Committee members come together to discuss topic that affects all: Aging.
WASHINGTON – As tensions rise on Capitol Hill amidst consecutive confirmation hearings and the transition of power in the White House, one committee came together in a rare moment of bipartisanship to discuss a topic that all Americans can relate to: Aging.
“Age is not a partisan issue,” Chairman Rick Scott (R-Fla.) said Wednesday as he opened the Senate Special Committee on Aging’s first hearing of the year. “Whether we like to admit it or not, we are all aging. It impacts every single one of us regardless of political party.”
Ten out of the committee’s 13 members came together to highlight issues facing older Americans like accessible housing, financial security and engagement in the community. These “older Americans” constitute 20% of the country’s population, according to Executive Director of New York StateWide Senior Action Council María Alvarez.
“There are 10,000 people who turn 65 every single day in this country,” she said, as she stated the importance of increased federal funding to accommodate for the growing elderly population.
The committee members themselves are no strangers to aging.
“I think [this committee] is one that is highly relevant for everyone in the United States, but looking at the Senate itself, it’s quite relevant for us,” said Ranking Member Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), who is 58.
The average age of all the committee members is 63.
Committee members emphasized that they were on the same team when it came to taking care of the elderly.
“I believe we have a big opportunity in this committee to work in a bipartisan manner to support and improve the lives of America’s current senior citizens,” said Scott.
Even the two youngest members of the committee, Sen. Andy Kim (D-N.J.) and Sen. Angela Alsobrooks (D-Md.) said they can relate as caregivers themselves.
After his father’s major accident last summer that left him unable to walk, Kim said he struggled to navigate caregiving especially during a time of such emergency.
“Even navigating Medicare, I was a United States Congressman at that time, and I was having so much trouble just trying to navigate. I can’t imagine what other Americans have to deal with,” he said.
Accessible housing, costs of prescription drugs, financial security, social isolation, engagement in the community and technology were some of the topics that the committee members discussed with the panel of experts.
When asked about getting rid of spams and scams that a lot of the elderly fall victim to, Charlotte County Sheriff Bill Prummell said “a lot of legislation both on state levels and federal levels isn’t keeping up with technology. It’s years behind.”
Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.) mentioned the new administration’s plans for aging Americans.
“With President Trump’s election, Republicans take back the Senate. We’re going to leave no stone unturned,” he said. “I want to make sure that when Americans are asked about their wellness, they respond with hope and optimism, not fear and anxiety.”
The committee emphasized its commitment to promoting wellness among older Americans through resources like nutrition assistance, area agencies on aging, centers for independent living, supporting housing programs, Medicare, Medicaid and social security.
“I believe our job is to make sure these resources exist and are robust enough to support those who need them,” Gillibrand said.
Trump’s Energy Secretary nominee says the solution to climate change is a more evolved energy system
WASHINGTON — In a confirmation hearing on Wednesday, President-elect Donald Trump’s pick to lead the Energy Department, Chris Wright, pledged to use science and data to inform his decisions on nuclear waste management, energy and innovation.
“Energy is the infrastructure of life. It’s what makes everything possible,” said Wright, the CEO of Liberty Energy, which provides technology to help oil and gas companies produce fossil fuels.
Senators from both parties asked Wright whether his job in industry would present a conflict of interest. Wright said that if his nomination as Energy Secretary is confirmed, he would sever ties from energy companies. When several senators asked variations of whether he would succumb to sweetheart deals under Donald Trump’s administration, Wright said he has followed rigorous and ethical business practices his whole life and will continue to do so.
Most senators asked questions specific to their states, covering topics including critical minerals, geothermal development, funding to the national laboratories and small modular reactors (SMRs). Two topics that repeatedly came up were climate change and nuclear power.
Notably, in contrast to Trump’s past comments doubting climate change, Wright confirmed that he “absolutely” believes climate change is real.
“I’ve studied and followed the data and the evolution of climate change for at least 20 years now. It is a global issue. It is a real issue. It’s a challenging issue,” Wright said. “And the solution to climate change is to evolve our energy system. I’ve worked on that most of my career — in nuclear, solar, geothermal and new battery storage technology.”
One of the topics several senators pushed Wright on was the link between energy and wildfires.
Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) asked Wright to confirm that he would support improvements to Hawaii’s electric grids to reduce the risk of wildfires and ensure reliable access to power. He replied that his short answer would be yes.
Meanwhile, Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) grilled Wright about his past social media comments on wildfires.
“The climate crisis and its deadly effects is very real to my neighbors and my constituents,” Padilla said. “I understand that you’ve written that ‘the hype over wildfires is just hype to justify more impoverishment from bad government policies.’ Given the devastation that we’re currently experiencing in Los Angeles, do you believe that wildfires are ‘just hype?’”
Wright said “climate change is a real and global phenomenon” and that he is watching the wildfires with sorrow and fear. However he added, “I stand by my past comments.”
Later in the hearing, Wright said under him, the Department of Energy would accelerate the development of new energy technologies to address climate change.
Wright also said he was confident that he would be able to safely deal with nuclear waste.
“With engineering, sensible regulation and safeguards, I think the nuclear waste problem is one of the most manageable problems because the volume of waste is relatively small,” Wright said.
Still, Daryl Kimball, Executive Director of the Arms Control Association, said Wright was underestimating the challenge of managing nuclear waste.
“Historically, the Department of Energy has mismanaged the operation of these nuclear weapons production plants,” Kimball said. “That’s why we have environmental contamination. That’s why we have nuclear waste storage challenges. That’s why it has cost over $100 billion to deal with this, even since the end of the Cold War.”
Protesters interrupted the hearing multiple times, shouting about climate change and the Los Angeles wildfires, but the hearing was otherwise not especially contentious.
Immediately after the hearing, Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) said he expects Wright will soon lead the Department of Energy.
“I’m looking forward to getting him confirmed,” Lee said.
Pandemic telehealth rules expanded access to lifesaving addiction medication. Will the next DEA leader extend the flexibilities?
The medication buprenorphine, used by patients with opioid use disorder (OUD), became easier for Americans to access in 2020 as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, this access is only a temporary protection, and experts say the clock is ticking before thousands of patients lose access in 2025.
Buprenorphine, often referred to by the brand name Suboxone, is a partial opioid agonist, meaning it helps people with opiate use disorder quit using opioids by reducing cravings and lessening withdrawal symptoms. It is the only medication of its kind that primary care providers can prescribe. Before the pandemic, patients needed to be evaluated in person by a prescriber before they could start taking buprenorphine. During the COVID public health emergency, the in-person requirement was lifted, allowing providers to prescribe the medication via telehealth.
Lauren Majors, a nurse practitioner and addiction nurse practitioner program manager at Boston’s Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, said the ability to prescribe Suboxone online has significantly expanded the number of patients who can access treatment.
“It’s huge,” Majors said. “I was actually just talking to a patient today who lost his license due to substance use, and so getting to appointments can be incredibly challenging for patients. Many of them don’t have licenses or can’t drive, and so just by offering it, you’re reaching a broader audience.”
In 2020, an estimated 2.7 million people in the United States aged 12 and older had an OUD in the past 12 months, according to the National Institute on Drug Abuse. The opioid crisis has remained a significant issue across the country, with 107,941 people dying of an overdose in 2022, according to NIDA.
Between April 2023 and April 2024, overdose deaths declined by roughly 10 percent, according to the Centers for Disease Control, making it the largest decrease on record. The exact reason for the decline is unknown, but greater access to buprenorphine could be a contributing factor.
To prescribe Suboxone, a controlled substance, providers must obtain a U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency License by answering questions, paying a fee and waiting for their application to be processed. Rural areas may lack a nearby provider with a DEA license, so the pandemic flexibilities for Suboxone have been instrumental in allowing patients to access the medication, especially since some prescribers don’t have in-person appointments available for weeks.
Marcelo H. Fernández-Viña, who researches access to substance use treatment for Pew Research Center, said more patients than ever have been able to start and stay in treatment for OUD without an increase in overdose rates.
“Veterans, people experiencing homelessness, people that were involved in the criminal justice system, people living in rural areas, racial and ethnic minorities-they all got greater access to buprenorphine via telehealth,” Fernández-Viña said. “It really helped with barriers like transportation or finding childcare or taking time off work. And the research also showed that patients liked it and that providers liked it, too.”
But these pandemic flexibilities aren’t permanent. In March 2023, the U.S. was no longer in a state of public health emergency, so the DEA proposed changing the rules. Under the proposal, patients would have been able to get one 30-day supply of buprenorphine before having to visit their provider in person for another prescription. The DEA received over 38,000 comments in response to the proposed changes to telemedicine, with the vast majority advocating for a continuation of entirely online care.
As a result, the DEA extended the flexibilities through November 2023, and then again through December 2024. The most recent extension provides an additional year of buprenorphine access via telehealth, through the end of 2025.
Fernández-Viña said the temporary nature of these rules has made the future of OUD care uncertain for both patients and providers.
“It has left many providers hesitant to invest in telehealth services, and it leaves patients continually in danger of losing access to this treatment,” he said. “People don’t know what their treatment is going to look like after these things expire.”
With the new presidential term beginning in 2025, patients remain unsure what will happen to their Suboxone access. Extending telehealth rules takes time, as the DEA is required to offer a public comment period of 30 or 60 days before reviewing responses, addressing major concerns and finalizing the extension.
“That’s a long process. It’s a lot of bureaucracy. So that takes time,” Fernández-Viña said. “In addition to that, it’s a new administration, there’s new folks. Getting people up and running takes time, so a year is tight.”
Congress also can make these telehealth provisions permanent. The Telehealth Response for E-prescribing Addiction Therapy Services (TREATS) Act was proposed in the Senate in November 2023, but it has yet to see any legislative progress. Both Congress and the DEA feel the other should oversee the policy change.
Sen. Mike Braun (R-Ind.), who serves on the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee, said he favors keeping the flexibilities in place, and views it as a worthy legislative pursuit. “I love telehealth. I think you should be able to do anything through telehealth because it’s generally going to be a lower cost when it comes to that, or almost anything else in health care.”
When asked why Congress has not acted on the issue, Braun said that “the health care industry isn’t that interested in it, as they should be, because it would probably lower their revenues.”
Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), another HELP Committee member, said he intends to look into the safety of buprenorphine. “I don’t have yet a conclusion about that,” he said. “It would be a mistake just to go back to where we were before. Exactly how the telehealth prescription of buprenorphine has worked, and has it been a good thing with no unintended downsides or consequences, I don’t really know. I’d want to take a look at it, but I do generally think that our use of telehealth during the COVID was one of the real smart things we did.”
President-elect Trump tapped Chad Chronister, a Florida sheriff, for DEA Administrator, but Chronister withdrew his name for consideration earlier this month. Trump later took to Truth Social, saying that Chronister did not withdraw his name but instead, pulled his support for the sheriff. A replacement has yet to be named, but lawmakers, providers and patients remain unsure how the new executive branch will proceed.
Kyle Zebley, Executive Director of ATA Action, a group affiliated with the American Telemedicine Association that advocates for the expansion of telemedicine services, noted that Congress originally granted the DEA the ability to allow providers to prescribe controlled substances without an initial in-person visit in 2008. Yet, 16 years later, a permanent solution remains elusive.
“I think that the new administration will want to take a look at what the outgoing Biden administration has done in terms of their draft rule, which is not publicly available yet, and see if they will want to continue with it or change course,” Zebley said. “I think that they will likely want to change course and put their own imprint on it. That takes time.”
The main hesitancy surrounding expanding Suboxone access is a practice called diversion—the illegal distribution of medication from a patient with a prescription to someone without one. But Fernández-Viña said that studies have proven the best way to prevent diversion is to increase access, which the pandemic flexibilities have done in a major way.
“We’ve got this one year, and then once that year is up, if nothing gets done, then people lose access,” Fernández-Viña said. “We’re really heading towards the cliff.”
Supreme Court appears to side with state’s ban on transgender youth treatments
WASHINGTON — Conservative Supreme Court justices raised doubts about the challenge to Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming medical care for transgender minors during oral arguments for United States v. Skrmetti Wednesday.
Enacted in 2023, Tennessee’s Senate Bill 1 bars health care providers from prescribing puberty blockers and hormone therapy to minors with gender dysphoria, even with parental consent. The condition causes distress even with parental consent. The condition causes distress because of a mismatch between their biological sex and their gender identity.
Advocacy groups, including the ACLU and Lambda Legal, challenged the law on behalf of affected families, such as Nashville parents Samantha and Brian Williams and their transgender daughter.
Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, representing the challengers, argued that Tennessee’s blanket ban is both overbroad and harmful, failing to account for health risks tied to untreated gender dysphoria, such as elevated suicide rates among transgender youth.
“Rather than impose measured guardrails, SB1 bans the care outright no matter how critical it is for an individual patient, and that approach is a stark departure from the State’s regulation of pediatric care in all other contexts,” Prelogar said.
Hundreds rally as Supreme Court hears case on gender-affirming care for transgender youth (Emma Richman/MNS)
West Virginia, which requires procedural steps including a psychological evaluation to receive medications for gender dysphoria, was cited as an alternative to the law.
Chief Justice John Roberts rigorously questioned Prelogar asking whether the court should leave health care regulations to state legislative bodies.
“The Constitution leaves that question to the people’s representatives rather than to nine people, none of whom is a doctor,” Roberts said.
Other justices echoed similar concerns, including Justices Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh.
Justice Kavanaugh also voiced concerns about the medical risks posed to transgender youth, pointing out that some European countries’ research revealed concerns about the effects of hormone therapy on transgender youth.
“If it’s evolving like that and changing and England’s pulling back and Sweden’s pulling back, it strikes me as a pretty heavy yellow light, if not red light, for this court,” Kavanaugh said.
Justice Samuel Alito echoed a similar sentiment, citing Swedish data that appeared to be contrary to the solicitor’s claims that the treatment is more beneficial than risky.
Prelogar pushed back, citing both that Tennessee has not “substantiated those risks” in court and despite those research findings, European countries have not categorically banned medication for transgender youth.
“There has been no change in the law that I’m aware of in Sweden, Finland and Norway. Each of the medical authorities in those states has called for an individualized approach to care,” Pelogar said. “But they have not changed their laws to do anything like what Tennessee is doing here.”
William Eskridge, a Yale law professor who wrote an amicus brief opposing SB1, told the Medill New Service that the WPATH standards of care, transgender therapy guidelines, is approved by the American Medical Association.
“The medical consensus is still in favor of very cautious, medically supervised treatments for adolescents who have serious gender dysphoria,” William Eskridge said, a Yale law professor who wrote an amicus brief opposing SB1. “Name me one significant medical procedure that does not have risks and side effects.”
Matthew Rice, Tennessee’s solicitor general, defended the law by asserting that its focus is on medical intent rather than a patient’s sex, and that the law’s wording, “Inconsistent with sex” was solely used to “describe a single prohibited medical purpose.”
He argued that the measure was designed to protect minors from risk-heavy medical treatments that could have “irreversible and life-altering consequences.” Therefore, the law was not intentionally discriminatory based on sex.
“Just as using morphine to manage pain differs from using it to assist suicide, using hormones and puberty blockers to address a physical condition is far different from using it to address psychological distress associated with one’s body,” Rice said.
The law blocks minors from accessing gender-affirming treatments while still permitting the same medications to be used for other conditions for cisgender youth, such as early-onset puberty. This inconsistency forms part of the critique against the law, which opponents argue is vague and grounded in outdated gender stereotypes.
Yale Law Professor Issa Kohler-Hausman, who co-authored an amicus brief with Yale philosophers and lawyers, described Tennessee’s defense as deeply flawed. Despite the defense’s argument that medications are risky for transgender youth, she said the law aims to enforce gender norms, with SB1 encouraging minors to “appreciate their sex.”
“[Tennessee’s] argument is literally incoherent unless, you’re already packing in social expectations and roles and cultural assumptions into the word ‘sex’, because what the Republican justices and conservative legal activists want to always do, is pretend that they’re using sex in this a purely biological way,” Kohler-Hausman said. “That’s nonsense.”
Justice Sonia Sotomayor pushed back against the state’s argument, noting the high rates of suicide among minors with gender dysphoria.
“One of the Petitioners in this case described throwing up every day, going almost mute because of their inability to speak in a voice that they could live with,” Sotomayor said.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson also expressed concern about the court siding with Tennessee, noting that similar reasoning was once used to defend state bans on interracial marriage, which the Supreme Court struck down in 1967.
Jackson cautioned that doing so could erode the principles underpinning key equal protection rulings, questioning whether the court risked weakening its foundational precedents.
“A law is drawing lines on the basis of some suspect classification,” Jackson said.
The Court is expected to release a decision this summer.
Lawmakers spar with NIH director over vaccine rhetoric, racial equity
WASHINGTON – Lawmakers sparred with Dr. Monica Bertagnolli, Director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), over vaccines and the future of the agency under President-Elect Donald Trump at a House Appropriations Committee Hearing on Tuesday.
The hearing was held just days after Trump tapped former presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to lead the Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees the NIH. Kennedy, a vocal vaccine skeptic, has called for an overhaul of HHS’s agencies, claiming that federal agencies are allied with food and drug companies that are worsening the health of Americans. Rep. Andy Harris (R-Md.) said he had spoken to Kennedy about his plans for the department.
“America’s getting sicker and not healthier,” Harris said. “There’s a reason why Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Musk are going to have a study in this, because I think they realize that we have to make America healthy again.”
Harris pressed Bertagnolli on the NIH’s study of nutrition-related diseases in the U.S. He cited a phone call to the NIH’s Office of Nutrition Research during which he claims his staff was informed that the agency does not have a scientist specializing in nutrition-related diseases.
“Obesity, hypertension, diabetes-these are the drivers of huge costs in our Medicare program,” Harris said. “Do you really not have a scientist at NIH who specializes in studying diet-related disease?”
“That perception could not possibly be more wrong,” Bertagnolli said in response. “I can’t think of a single institute or center across NIH that doesn’t, in some way or form, have research that touches on nutrition.”
Later in the hearing, Harris questioned the NIH’s biological research involving transgender individuals, asking Bertagnolli whether the agency would report a transgender woman as a biological male or female.
“We assign them according to the biological research question we are trying to answer,” Bertagnolli said. “We’re not going to say they’re a man or they’re a woman. We are going to base it off the science and the scientific question we’re trying to answer.”
“And that’s why nobody trusts the NIH,” Harris responded.
The Appropriations Committee, which oversees federal discretionary funding, discussed the President’s Budget for Fiscal Year 2025. The budget requests a $1.2 billion increase in federal funding for the NIH, which plans to boost funding for women’s health and vaccine development.
Rep. Lois Frankel (D-Fla.) expressed concern about anti-vaccine rhetoric among members of the incoming administration, seemingly critical of Kennedy, and asked Bertagnolli about the risks of not vaccinating children in the U.S.
“If all vaccination suddenly stops, we will see much more severe illness and death in children,” Bertagnolli said. “There are other places in the world that have this, that do not have widespread vaccination of their populations, and look at the tragedies that we see there. I think it would be very disturbing.”
Bertagnolli was also pressed by Rep. Andrew Clyde (R-Ga.) on a “deeply concerning” 2023 investigation into NIH officials’ use of personal email accounts to evade the Freedom of Information Act.
Bertagnolli refused to comment on ongoing personnel matters within the agency, but Clyde persisted. “Congress is an investigative body. We are doing an investigation here,” he said. When I ask you a question, I need a response.”
Bertagnolli promised that she would look into the matter and that the NIH will abide by all legal requirements, including preserving records and being transparent with the incoming Trump administration.
She also cited the NIH’s study of gene therapies for rare diseases, which the for-profit sector is unlikely to invest in, as a way to make health care more accessible. Once the NIH develops effective treatments, the agency can sell the therapies to the private sector under strict regulations to keep therapies affordable for Americans.
“We have a researcher who is doing in-utero gene therapies. Wouldn’t that be wonderful if we could test a baby even before it’s born, deliver a treatment and eliminate suffering from things like this?” Bertagnolli said. “NIH needs to take even these very rare diseases under our wing and really champion the gene therapies that can be ideally curative for these individuals.”
Why voters chose to protect abortion and vote for Donald Trump, according to experts
WASHINGTON– Experts say the successful protection of abortion rights in seven states Tuesday shows reproductive rights are popular among voters. However, an interesting scenario in four states is raising questions about the issue.
Voters in Nevada, Arizona, Montana and Missouri voted for both state amendments to protect reproductive rights and former President Donald Trump, helping him win the 2024 presidential election.
The former President has taken credit for the fall of Roe v. Wade in 2022, removing federal protections for abortion rights. Trump nominated three justices to the Supreme Court, all of whom voted to overturn the 1973 decision in the case Dobbs vs. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.
The two outcomes represented a stark “dissonance” among voters, according to Melissa Goodman, Executive Director of the UCLA Center on Reproductive Health, Law and Policy. She said that voters simultaneously voted to protect and harm those rights.
“We have these overwhelming wins in ballot measures to protect abortion rights around the nation and a majority of voters obviously elected Donald Trump, which will unquestionably have extremely devastating consequences for reproductive health care access and gender equality in our country for the next four years,” Goodman said.
Exit polling shows abortion was not the most important thing on voters minds in the voting booth. According to a Washington Post report, 66% of voters felt the economy and “the state of democracy” were the most important issues. On abortion, polling found just 14% of voters had reproductive rights as their top issue.
Goodman contends that a big reason for the lesser concern and disconnected results was that Donald Trump effectively “obfuscated” his own views and policies on the issue. She points to the former president’s repeated commitment to leave things to the states and at times murky view on signing a national abortion ban.
“In these states where they had the ability to kind of express their views about abortion in the way of a state ballot measure, that was the way they expressed their feelings on that subject, and then possibly felt free to express their opinion on other topics in their candidate votes,” Goodman says.
Long-time Democratic party pollster Celinda Lake agrees. She said the state amendments “almost gave [voters] permission” to vote on their other concerns by making it “impossible for [politicians] to act further on the abortion issue.”
Lake said that Vice President Kamala Harris did a “brilliant job on the abortion issue,” and that her loss was not a failure in her messaging on reproductive rights. She said the results of the election and abortion amendments shows Harris fell short in her messaging about the economy, something Lake says is a long-time issue in Democratic platforms. But the issue in Lake’s eyes isn’t the quality of the policy, but trouble with getting the word out about them.
According to Lake, she found through focus groups that 60% of people don’t really know what Democrats stand for economically, and that lack of clarity may have impacted voters when deciding who to give the economic reins to for the next four years.
“We don’t have an economic brand, and we start out every campaign 20 points behind on the economy,” Lake says. “We have to step back and have an economic brand that works for working people.”
Goodman and Lake both said that pollsters, strategists and academics will have to work to find out what happened this election, and understand how abortion was outshone by other concerns.
But they agree the takeaway here should not be that abortion does not matter to voters.
“There remains extremely strong support for abortion rights throughout this country, despite the actual presidential election result,” Goodman said.
Medill Today | Wednesday, October 29, 2025