Sen. Rand Paul grilled former CDC Director Susan Monarez during a Senate HELP Committee hearing on Wednesday, charging she was fired from the agency last month for promoting infant vaccination. Monarez, 50, testified about her abrupt firing on Aug. 27 after clashing with Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. during the early days of his leadership. The exchange underscored enduring tensions over vaccination policy at a time when federal guidance has long emphasized immunization as a core public-health tool.
"You resisted firing people who have this idea that the COVID vaccine should be [given] at six months. That’s what this is about," Paul, a physician by training, argued during a heated back-and-forth. "You didn’t resist firing the beautiful scientists, the career people … [who were] unobjective and unbiased. You wouldn’t fire the people who are saying that we have to vaccinate our kids at six months of age. That’s who you refuse to fire," he added. Monarez countered, saying, "That assertion is not commensurate with the experience that I had with the individuals who were identified to be fired." The hearing room, filled with lawmakers split along party lines, reflected broader debate about what role, if any, federal agencies should play in setting vaccination timelines for infants.
During the back-and-forth, Paul revisited one of his longstanding questions about the vaccine program for children. He pressed Monarez on whether the COVID-19 vaccine reduces hospitalizations for children under 18. "Does the COVID vaccine reduce hospitalization for children under 18?" he asked. Monarez replied, "It can," prompting Paul to retort, "It doesn’t." The exchange highlighted the partisan divide over interpreting vaccine effectiveness data for pediatric populations and the appropriate thresholds for policy action.
Paul also challenged the administration’s handling of vaccines given at birth, such as the hepatitis B vaccine, which has been standard since the 1990s but has been scrutinized in some circles as Kennedy has sought to recalibrate policy. "When we’re discussing the science here, we have to discuss, what is the science in favor of giving the vaccine to a 6-month-old, and what are the benefits from that?" Paul asked. Monarez acknowledged the importance of science but said she was "open to the science" yet would not recommit to approving all ACIP recommendations. "I actually agree with you, and I was open to the science," she said, adding that CDC provides evidence-based recommendations to help parents and physicians make informed choices rather than mandating vaccination.
The hearing shed light on the broader leadership tensions at HHS following Kennedy’s ascension to the role. Monarez, a trained microbiologist with extensive infectious-disease experience, was confirmed by the Senate on July 29 and sworn in two days later, becoming the first CDC director to be confirmed by the Senate. Since her firing, she has been replaced on an acting basis by HHS Deputy Secretary Jim O’Neill, a move that has kept the agency in a transitional posture as lawmakers scrutinize vaccine policy and governance.
Throughout the proceedings, several committee members appeared sympathetic to Monarez, signaling a rift within the GOP-led chamber over how aggressively to pursue vaccine policy and how to interpret scientific advice from ACIP. Monarez emphasized that CDC’s role is to provide guidance and support informed decision-making rather than to compel individuals to vaccinate. "CDC provides recommendations supported by evidence to allow parents and physicians and others to make a choice, a decision, in the best interest of themselves and the health of their families," she said, reiterating that the agency does not force vaccination.
The questions from Paul arrived amid a broader national conversation about vaccine policy, pediatric immunization schedules, and the boundaries between science and policy within federal health agencies. As the committee weighs next steps, the clash between a former agency director and a senator who has long pressed on vaccine mandates illustrates the ongoing debate over how best to balance public health aims with concerns about physician and parental autonomy. The hearing did not resolve the policy questions at hand, but it did illuminate the political dynamics that have followed Kennedy’s controversial approach to public health governance.