At a recent Senate hearing, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said something I never thought I’d hear from a top federal health official: “I don’t think people should be taking medical advice from me.”
That wasn’t a dodge. That was honesty. And, frankly, it’s a breath of fresh air.
For too long, health bureaucrats in Washington have believed their job is to dictate Americans’ medical decisions. That mindset led to lockdowns, mandates, censorship, and the sidelining of safe, effective tools that were widely distributed earlier in the pandemic, such as monoclonal antibodies (mAbs). Secretary Kennedy’s testimony suggests a different view: the role of government is not to play doctor, but to protect the freedom of every American to decide what’s best for their own health.
That’s the right idea and the essence of true healthcare choice.
Contrast this with the last administration. Under President Joe Biden, Americans were forced to choose between a vaccine they didn’t want — with a plethora of boosters — and continued restrictions on their liberties.
Biden didn’t promote vaccine choice. He aggressively pushed vaccines and boosters as the primary defense from COVID. Meanwhile, monoclonal antibodies — preventive and therapeutic tools that cut the risk of hospitalization and death as high as 74% and 84% in high-risk patients — were pushed aside. The administration significantly scaled back their distribution even though mAbs successfully treated President Donald Trump and were backed by countless doctors who called for broader access.
Why? Because the Biden White House chose to prioritize vaccination above all else. It preferred to micromanage Americans’ care rather than empower families to make informed decisions.
That wasn’t science, it was politics. And Americans paid the price.
As my son Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, also a medical doctor, said countless times, some patients were even denied mAbs due to what he described as “partisan political games” — namely, the politically-charged FDA guidance that many hospitals felt pressured to follow throughout the pandemic. Five years later, the FDA still hasn’t fully approved a monoclonal antibody product.
That’s not “following the science” or respecting the people’s right and ability to make their own health care decisions. That’s the worst type of government overreach — micromanaging your medical decisions by erecting regulatory roadblocks designed to limit your options by and control what treatments and preventatives you can access. When Washington dictates what care you’re allowed to pursue, what opinions you’re allowed to hear, and what shots you’re required to take, you’re no longer living in a free country.
Now, under a new administration and with Secretary Kennedy at the helm of HHS, there’s an opportunity to chart a new course — one rooted in freedom, not fear.
Americans should have access to vaccines if they want them, but they should also have access to alternatives like mAbs. They should be allowed to hear all sides of a medical debate, not just the one approved by government “experts.” And they should be trusted to make informed choices for themselves and their families.
Secretary Kennedy’s comments may not have pleased the political class, but they honored the principle this country was founded on: government serves the people, not the other way around.
Real health policy doesn’t come from control. It comes from having confidence in the American people to make their own choices. At this early stage, I’m so glad that Secretary Kennedy seems to understand as much.
One of, if not the, highlights of President Donald Trump’s first months in office has been the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), headed by entrepreneur (and the world’s richest man) Elon Musk. Under Musk’s leadership, DOGE has not just exposed wasteful spending— but worked to reduce spending by eliminating entire agencies and even cabinet departments.
For example, DOGE pulled back the curtain on the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). Before DOGE exposed it, most Americans thought of USAID (if they thought of it at all) as an agency that provided humanitarian aid and development assistance to impoverished people in other countries. DOGE revealed that USAID’s humanitarian work was a cover for their true mission: making political and cultural change overseas. This is why USAID has spent millions on absurd “development” projects like transgender plays in Colombia, DEI schemes in Serbia and electric car subsidies in Vietnam.
Eliminating USAID would not mean the end of overseas development and humanitarian aid. It would mean that the aid would come from private charities. These charities can do a better job of providing aid than a government bureaucracy. As outrageous as USAID’s spending is, it is a drop in the bucket compared to the Pentagon’s over $800 billion (and on track to exceed $2 trillion by 2033) budget.
The “defense” budget is the third largest item in the federal budget, behind Social Security and Medicare. Few politicians will risk the wrath of senior citizens by voting to make any changes to these programs unless the changes are phased in such a way as to not affect those currently on, or close to, relying on the programs. Thus, any serious plan to reduce spending and debt must cut the bloated “defense” budget. Savings from reductions in military spending can be used to help support those dependent on federal programs as Congress unwinds the welfare state. Cutting military spending would be politically popular as most polls show a majority of Americans— including Republicans—support reducing America’s military commitments.
The poster child for wasteful Pentagon spending, which is thankfully already in Elon Musk’s crosshairs, is the F-35 —a $1.7 trillion disaster of delays, breakdowns and runaway costs. The plane, the most expensive military program ever, often sits grounded. The F-35 may be the most obvious example of wasteful Pentagon spending, but it is hardly alone. After all, this is the agency that brought us the $500 toilet seat. Shutting down boondoggles like the F-35 could provide revenue to help pay down the debt and protect those currently dependent on federal programs. It could also help ensure the forthcoming tax bill does not further increase the deficit.
DOGE is not the first effort to identify and eliminate wasteful spending. President Ronald Reagan had the Grace Commission, a sort of DOGE 1.0 that unearthed billions in waste—from the Department of Energy to the IRS. Their findings were buried by entrenched interests and a cowardly Congress. The lesson of the Grace Commission is that reducing even the most obvious wasteful spending requires the courage to stand up to the entrenched interests in both parties that benefit from the current system.
Trump and Musk may have the necessary convictions to make serious changes in the ways Washington works. However, they need to be prepared for the swamp to fight back. Democrats and their allies are already waging war against DOGE. To them, trying to identify and eliminate wasteful spending or even asking federal employees what they actually do is an assault on democracy. Most Democrats will join hawkish Republicans in seeking to protect the Pentagon’s budget. It would not be surprising if Congress’s bipartisan military-industrial complex caucus smeared those advocating cuts in the bloated military budget as “Putin’s puppets.”
The federal debt is growing by approximately $1 trillion every three months. To put that in perspective, consider that the federal debt did not reach the $1 trillion mark until 1981. Unless action is taken soon to reduce spending, pay down the federal debt and roll back the welfare-warfare state—America will face a serious economic crisis. Therefore, it is important that everyone who understands the stakes do what they can to support Trump and Musk’s efforts.
