The appointment of a new head for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, who possesses strong scientific credentials and no known connections to the anti-vaccine movement, has brought relief to the public health sector.
An unnamed employee at the CDC described the staff’s mood on Friday as “guarded but hopeful.”
Despite the optimism surrounding Erica Schwartz’s nomination, concerns remain about her ability to handle the challenges she may face. Schwartz, a retired rear admiral in the U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned Corps, succeeds Susan Monarez, who was dismissed following a clash with health secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. over vaccine policy. During her brief tenure, Monarez attempted to relocate a political appointee she hadn’t hired, but her efforts were blocked.
Since Monarez’s departure, the situation has shifted. Kennedy faces pressure to abandon his vaccine policy changes. While some of his supporters question Schwartz’s appointment, her former supervisor, Jerome Adams, who served as the surgeon general in the first Trump administration, gave her a strong, though slightly reserved, endorsement.
“She has the expertise, credibility, and integrity to lead the CDC effectively,” Adams stated on social media. “If allowed to follow the science without political interference, she’ll excel.”
Adams declined interview requests about Schwartz. Rich Danker, a spokesperson for the Department of Health and Human Services, praised Schwartz, calling her “a physician, public health expert, and veteran eminently qualified to lead the CDC in its mission of protecting America from infectious disease threats.”
Some experts worry that Schwartz might face a fate similar to Monarez’s: a competent individual unable to make science-based decisions in her role. Others express concern that Schwartz’s extensive military background—having served in the Navy and the Coast Guard—might lead her to follow orders, even if they lack scientific backing.
“It’s not about her. It’s about what the secretary’s going to do,” Daniel Jernigan, a former CDC center director who resigned in protest over Monarez’s firing, told STAT. “She could be terrible, she could be great. But it’s really: What is the secretary going to allow?”
Abby Tighe, a former CDC employee affected by the agency’s first round of cuts in February 2025, expressed cautious optimism about Schwartz’s qualifications but remained skeptical. “After what happened with Dr. Monarez, I am most concerned that Dr. Schwartz has been chosen by this administration to rubber stamp misinformation and bad health policy,” said Tighe, a founder of the National Public Health Coalition, formerly Fired But Fighting.
“I deeply hope that is not how things shake out, but it is hard to trust a nominee from this administration, no matter how qualified, after the year and half of trauma and turmoil at the CDC,” she added.
Jernigan, who worked with Schwartz during the Covid-19 pandemic when she was tasked with setting up public testing facilities, praised her efforts. “She really jumped into it and took it on and made it happen,” he said.
A member of the Biden administration’s transition team recalled interactions with Schwartz, who served as the HHS liaison for the first Trump administration. “She was the point person and essentially, the choke point, making it difficult to set up meetings and get information,” said the individual, speaking anonymously. “She was an intentional bottleneck that prevented the new team from getting basic information about how the department was operating.”
Concerns persist regarding Schwartz’s ability to stand up to Kennedy, should the situation demand it. Amesh Adalja, a senior scholar at Johns Hopkins University Center for Health Security, cautioned that without independence from Kennedy, Schwartz might merely serve as “window dressing.” He suggested she should have insisted on autonomy before accepting the position.
The Washington Post reported that some candidates withdrew from consideration after demanding similar autonomy, but Schwartz is expected to have “a free hand” in running the CDC.
Individuals familiar with the selection process, who spoke anonymously, indicated that the search committee prioritized finding a nominee who could be confirmed.
There have been mixed signals from the administration on public health issues like vaccination policy and the CDC’s independence. Polling commissioned by the White House suggests that Kennedy’s approach to vaccination policy is unpopular among both Republicans and Democrats. The White House has communicated that it has fulfilled its objectives on vaccination policy, advising Kennedy to focus on more popular initiatives ahead of the midterm elections in November.
Despite this, recent actions raise questions about the White House’s efforts to curtail Kennedy’s influence. After a federal court issued a preliminary ruling that Kennedy’s appointed Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices lacked adequate credentials, the ACIP’s charter was revised. The new charter, released last week, reduces the expertise required for panel members and shifts focus from effective vaccine use to studying their alleged harms.
On the same day, The Post reported that Jay Bhattacharya, head of the National Institutes of Health and acting CDC director, delayed a study showing Covid vaccines’ effectiveness in preventing severe illness. An HHS spokesperson confirmed that Bhattacharya had concerns about the study’s methodology, despite its standard use.
Schwartz will face additional challenges if confirmed by the Senate. The director’s office has become a hub for political appointees, many lacking public health or medical credentials. Some have unsuccessfully run for office as Republicans or worked on GOP campaigns, and some hold anti-vaccine views.
Historically, the CDC had only one political appointee: the director. However, in the past 15 months, there have been approximately 18 political appointees added to the agency. Three more were appointed with Schwartz’s nomination, replacing individuals like Ralph Abraham, who left the CDC after less than two months, and Lynda Chapman, who is transitioning to a new role at HHS.
The new appointees include Sean Slovenski, a former president of Walmart Health & Wellness, as CDC deputy director and chief operating officer; Jennifer Shuford, Texas state health commissioner and infectious diseases physician, as deputy director and chief medical officer; and Sara Brenner, principal deputy commissioner at the Food and Drug Administration, as a senior counselor for public health to Kennedy.
Phil Huang, health director for the city of Dallas, expressed disappointment over losing Shuford but praised her strong public health background, including pandemic management and vaccination support, contingent on receiving necessary backing. “If the new appointees say, here’s what we need to do for public health, that they’re trusted for their expertise” by senior HHS leadership, Huang stated.
It remains unclear whether Schwartz had any influence over these hires, or if she will be granted authority to manage the existing political appointees—an important factor in determining agency leadership. Jernigan noted, “There are still people in that office, like Stuart Burns, that I personally think do not have the agency’s best interest at heart. And until they’re gone, they’re going to run into trouble.”
“The names have been put forward are good,” Jernigan continued. “But the landscape has not changed, and we’re just adding more politicals [appointees] to it.”
