The New York Post editorial board on Thursday delivered a blistering rebuke of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., calling him a "paranoid kook" and accusing him of undermining evidence-based decision making following a tense Senate hearing.
In an editorial accompanying coverage of the hearing, the typically pro-Donald Trump tabloid — owned by Rupert Murdoch — said Kennedy "made it crystal clear" that he "won't be restoring sanity to our public-health bureaucracies, desperate as the need is." The board criticized Kennedy's posture and rhetoric, writing that he came off "as a paranoid kook connecting red strings on a whiteboard" and that "Kennedy's tinfoil hat is blocking out all sense, to the point where he can't even acknowledge basic facts that don't align with his priors."
The editorial argued that agencies such as HHS and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention "need to move toward a sane center, where decisions are based on data-informed evidence," and concluded that "the more Kennedy opens his mouth, the more obvious it becomes that letting him call the shots is [problematic]." The piece followed public questioning of Kennedy by senators over his vaccine policies during the hearing.
Kennedy, long known as a vaccine skeptic, has drawn both criticism and support for his views on public health policy. The New York Post's attack stands out because the tabloid is generally aligned with conservative and pro-Trump perspectives; its editorial board's language was unusually scathing for a publication that often supports figures from the Republican political sphere.
Lawmakers at the Senate hearing pressed Kennedy on his approaches to vaccination strategy and public-health guidance, reflecting broader partisan debates about the role of federal public-health agencies and the balance between individual choice and population-level protections. The hearing underscored continuing tensions in Washington over how to manage public health policy and the qualifications and viewpoints of those who lead key agencies.
The Post's editorial joins a string of media and political reactions to Kennedy's public statements and policy proposals, illustrating the polarized environment surrounding vaccine discourse and federal health leadership. The criticism from a prominent conservative outlet highlights how contentious Kennedy's tenure has become across ideological lines.
Kennedy's office did not immediately publicly respond to the editorial. The New York Post invited readers to consider its assessment in the context of the recent hearing, summarizing its view that Kennedy's approach is incompatible with a return to what the paper described as a more rational, evidence-based public-health establishment.
The exchange in the Senate and the subsequent editorial are likely to continue fueling debate over the direction of HHS and the broader national conversation about vaccines, public trust in health institutions, and the criteria used to evaluate public-health leadership.