Quick Hit:

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., President Trump's nominee for Health and Human Services Secretary, faced fierce opposition from Senate Democrats, highlighting their shift away from reform-minded policies. Lee Fang, writing in the Los Angeles Times, argues that Kennedy's positions remain consistent while the left has abandoned its prior skepticism of corporate influence in healthcare.

Key Details:

• Once praised by Democrats for his environmental advocacy, Kennedy is now vilified for his stance on corporate accountability and pharmaceutical oversight.

• Senate hearings showcased Democratic senators pushing misleading narratives and attacking Kennedy for positions they once embraced.

• Kennedy’s grassroots “Make America Healthy Again” movement, largely supported by mothers, has gained traction despite institutional opposition.

Diving Deeper:

The Senate confirmation hearings for Robert F. Kennedy Jr. revealed a dramatic reversal in how Democrats treat reformers. Once celebrated for his environmental advocacy and legal battles against corporate malfeasance, Kennedy is now the target of attacks from the same party that previously championed him. As Los Angeles Times columnist Lee Fang points out, this shift is less about Kennedy changing his beliefs and more about Democrats abandoning their long-held positions on corporate accountability.

“In another era, Democrats might have championed Kennedy’s nomination to lead Health and Human Services,” Fang writes. Kennedy’s platform remains centered on issues progressives once prioritized: cracking down on toxic food additives, reducing drug prices, and investigating the root causes of chronic diseases rather than just managing them. Yet, today’s Democratic Party, increasingly aligned with corporate interests, views Kennedy as a threat rather than an ally.

During the hearings, Kennedy was surrounded by Republican allies and grassroots supporters from his "Make America Healthy Again" movement, a group largely composed of mothers concerned about the nation’s health policies. Meanwhile, opposition to his nomination was fueled by industry-backed nonprofits and pharmaceutical interest groups. “The battle lines on Capitol Hill have also turned upside down,” Fang notes.

Democrats’ hostility toward Kennedy stems from his skepticism of the pharmaceutical industry—once a mainstream view within their party but now deemed heretical in the post-COVID era. During the pandemic, Democratic officials embraced vaccine mandates, school closures, and social media censorship of dissenting voices, while Kennedy consistently opposed government overreach. His willingness to challenge the establishment has made him a prime target for political attacks.

Fang highlights the media’s role in this character assassination, noting that outlets once praising Kennedy now smear him as a “conspiracy theorist.” Vanity Fair, which previously described him as “one of the most respected environmental advocates in the country,” now claims he could be “one of the greatest villains in American history.” This stark contrast, Fang argues, is a result of Democrats’ embrace of institutional power rather than an actual shift in Kennedy’s beliefs.

The hearing itself was filled with misleading accusations. Sen. Tina Smith attempted to force Kennedy into a black-and-white answer about whether antidepressants cause school shootings, demanding a simple "yes or no" response. Kennedy’s reply, “I don’t think anybody can answer that question,” emphasized the need for further study rather than knee-jerk conclusions. His answer was measured, yet Democrats framed it as evasive.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren, a self-proclaimed corporate watchdog, went after Kennedy for his lawsuits against Merck, bizarrely equating his legal battles with corporate lobbying. Fang contrasts this with Warren’s warm reception of Obama-era HHS nominee Sylvia Mathews Burwell, a former Walmart Foundation executive. “The logic here leaves much to ponder,” Fang writes, questioning why Warren would attack a reformer while embracing an establishment figure.

Ultimately, Fang argues that Kennedy’s nomination represents an opportunity for real healthcare reform—one that Democrats are squandering due to partisan bitterness. “The left's hysterical response to his nomination reveals less about Kennedy's evolution than about the Democratic Party's dramatic pandemic-era shift toward institutional deference,” he observes.

At a time when voters have rejected heavy-handed government mandates and corporate favoritism, Kennedy’s confirmation could mark a turning point in restoring public trust. Whether Democrats recognize this or continue their vendetta remains to be seen.