The atmosphere on Capitol Hill was heavy with tension on Thursday, September 4, 2025. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who now leads the Department of Health and Human Services, walked into the Senate Finance Committee hearing room knowing he would face the sharpest political test of his tenure. Rows of senators leaned forward in their chairs. Reporters filled the back rows, pens and cameras ready. This was not an ordinary oversight meeting. It felt like an arena where Democrats and Republicans both prepared to throw hard punches.
Kennedy, once a presidential candidate and now one of the most polarising figures in the Biden administration, sat down at the witness table. He adjusted the microphone, looked around the crowded chamber, and prepared to defend a record that has drawn fire from both sides of the aisle. What followed were hours of pointed questions, heated exchanges, and political theatre that revealed deep divides over the nation’s health policies.
Democrats Set the Tone
Democrats wasted little time in pressing their case. Committee Chairman Ron Wyden opened with strong words, accusing Kennedy of undermining public trust in vaccines and mishandling his responsibilities at HHS. He said Kennedy’s decisions had “real consequences for families” and warned that his leadership posed risks at a critical moment as the country braces for another respiratory illness season.
Wyden was not alone. Senator Debbie Stabenow questioned Kennedy’s abrupt dismissal of several members of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunisation Practices (ACIP). She argued that the move stripped away independent oversight, leaving communities more vulnerable. Senator Bob Casey pressed Kennedy on whether limiting access to COVID-19 boosters in certain states was a cost-saving measure or a deliberate ideological choice.
The Democratic side framed Kennedy as a leader more interested in proving a point than in safeguarding public health. They drew a straight line between his long history of vaccine skepticism and the turmoil that now surrounds the nation’s leading health agencies. Some even called for him to resign if he could not change course quickly.
Republicans Walk a Careful Line
While Democrats led the attack, Republicans were not prepared to give Kennedy a free pass. Their tone was more mixed, blending skepticism with occasional support. Senator Bill Cassidy, a physician by training, acknowledged the need for reform at the CDC but warned that Kennedy’s new vaccine policies could prevent Americans from receiving critical shots. He reminded the committee that millions rely on clear and consistent vaccine schedules, especially seniors and children.
Senator John Barrasso pressed Kennedy on whether he still accepted global studies that showed vaccines had saved millions of lives. Kennedy hesitated, saying that data was often shaped by politics. While he later admitted that vaccines had saved lives, his reluctance to endorse the broad scientific consensus left several Republicans uneasy.
Other GOP senators, including Chuck Grassley, asked why Kennedy had removed veteran scientists from key positions so abruptly. They argued that reform should not come at the expense of expertise. At the same time, some Republicans expressed sympathy for Kennedy’s broader message that federal agencies had grown too bureaucratic and unaccountable.
This split approach from Republicans meant Kennedy could not count on their protection. He faced tough questions from both sides, even if their motivations differed.
Kennedy’s Defence
Kennedy struck a combative but controlled tone throughout the hearing. He framed his actions as bold reforms aimed at rebuilding trust in a system that, in his words, “failed the American people during COVID.” He said the CDC had lost credibility by clinging to rigid policies that shut schools and confused families. His shake-up of advisory panels, he argued, was necessary to break up “groupthink” and bring in fresh voices.
He also defended his decision to limit the distribution of some vaccines. Kennedy argued that his department was working to prioritise transparency, community engagement, and safety monitoring. He promised that new dashboards would enable the public to view distribution numbers, uptake rates, and adverse event reporting in real-time.
“I am not dismantling public health,” Kennedy insisted. “I am rebuilding it on a foundation of honesty, transparency, and accountability.”
Still, his answers often left senators dissatisfied. His refusal to fully endorse vaccine studies drew criticism from Democrats and made some Republicans nervous. His promises of transparency sounded good on paper, but lawmakers pressed for detailed timelines and concrete steps.
What Comes Next
As the hearing ended, the divide remained clear. Democrats warned Kennedy that he was undermining decades of progress in public health. Republicans urged him to tread carefully and avoid alienating families who trust established vaccination programs.
Kennedy left the chamber without stopping to answer shouted questions from reporters. But the stakes he faces are only growing. In the coming weeks, his department must roll out updated flu and COVID vaccines. States and hospitals will need clear guidance, and parents will want straightforward answers from their doctors. Any missteps could further deepen public confusion and erode trust.
Congress is unlikely to let the matter rest. Lawmakers hinted at additional hearings and stricter oversight if Kennedy does not provide more detailed plans. Medical associations are already lobbying for a stronger role in advising the administration.
For Kennedy, the challenge is enormous. He must prove that reform can coexist with safety, that transparency can build trust rather than fuel doubt, and that bold action does not have to mean reckless action. His leadership will now be measured not just by words in a hearing room but by how well the nation weathers the coming health season.
Conclusion
The Senate hearing showed Robert F. Kennedy Jr. at the center of a storm. Democrats attacked him with open hostility, while Republicans questioned him with cautious skepticism. He stood his ground, defending reforms that he believes will improve public health. However, his critics, both inside and outside the government, view him as a leader who is risking too much at a perilous moment.
The arena of Capitol Hill is rarely forgiving. Kennedy entered it this week, determined to fight. Whether he can survive the battles ahead will depend on whether his promises can be turned into steady leadership that reassures families, doctors, and lawmakers alike. The future of his tenure, and perhaps the credibility of federal health policy itself, now hangs in the balance.
