Dr. Erica Schwartz told a Senate committee Wednesday she would "never betray the science" as CDC director, then spent much of the hearing refusing to say whether she would push back against the man who would be her boss.
The 54-year-old former deputy surgeon general, Trump's latest pick to lead the battered Atlanta-based agency, faced pointed questions from senators about whether she would resist political pressure from Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. On several specific Kennedy actions, including a directive to suspend flu vaccination promotion during a deadly flu season, Schwartz declined to dissent.
That gap between her broad promise and her narrow answers captures the bind facing anyone nominated to run the CDC under this administration. The agency has shed more than 3,000 employees, over a quarter of its workforce, since Trump returned to office. It has cycled through a string of mostly temporary leaders. And its front office is now filled with political appointees, many with little or no training in medicine or public health.
The sharpest moment came when Sen. Maggie Hassan, a New Hampshire Democrat, asked Schwartz directly: would she suspend promotion of a flu vaccination campaign if Kennedy ordered her to do so? Internal CDC emails released last month by Sen. Bernie Sanders documented exactly that directive from Kennedy to CDC staff during a deadly flu season.
Schwartz replied: "Senator, I don't speak in hypotheticals."
Hassan fired back: "It isn't hypothetical. It happened."
Schwartz did not change her answer. The exchange crystallized what frustrated several senators at the hearing, a nominee who pledged "radical transparency" in the abstract but would not address concrete, documented actions already taken by the administration she would serve.
Sen. Bill Cassidy, a Republican and physician, warned Schwartz directly during the hearing: "Any equivocation on these facts, and I shall not be able to support your nomination, because when trust is destroyed, it's hard to be effective." That a Republican senator felt the need to deliver that message tells you something about the political terrain Schwartz is navigating.
Schwartz is the third nominee Trump has put forward for the position, a fact that itself speaks to the turbulence inside the nation's premier public health agency.
The first pick, former Florida congressman Dr. David Weldon, never got a hearing. His March 2025 confirmation was canceled an hour before it was scheduled to begin. Weldon said at the time he'd been told not enough senators were willing to vote for him.
Then came Susan Monarez, who was confirmed by the Senate as CDC director, only to be ousted in less than a month. Trump administration officials said she wasn't aligned with their agenda. The Washington Examiner reported that Monarez was fired for refusing to pre-approve Kennedy's vaccine advisory decisions.
In the gap between directors, NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya has been overseeing the CDC. Before that, a series of HHS officials in Washington served as acting directors, none with the institutional authority or Senate-confirmed mandate the role demands.
Trump nominated Schwartz in April, calling her "incredibly talented." Kennedy said at a congressional hearing that same month that he approved of the choice, but refused to commit to supporting whatever vaccine guidance she might issue. That qualifier deserves attention. It means the Health Secretary publicly reserved the right to overrule his own CDC director before she was even confirmed.
On paper, Schwartz brings credentials that should satisfy both the public health establishment and the administration. A former military officer, she held a leadership role at the U.S. Coast Guard overseeing 41 clinics and 150 sick bays, along with policies promoting vaccinations of service members. She served as Trump's first-term deputy surgeon general and played a role in the nationwide COVID-19 vaccine deployment.
That record has drawn fire from vaccine skeptics aligned with Kennedy's "Make America Healthy Again" movement. Just The News reported that Schwartz signed at least three military vaccine mandate memos during her tenure as deputy surgeon general. Vaccine injury lawyer Aaron Siri told the outlet: "She would likely be a disaster. This agency does not need another cheerleader for industry; it needs a regulator over industry."
Kennedy, for his part, offered measured support. "I look forward to working together to restore trust, accountability, and scientific integrity so we can return it to its core mission and Make America Healthy Again," he said of Schwartz's nomination.
Schwartz herself told the committee she believes the CDC has suffered from "mission creep." "I think over time, the CDC has had some mission creep, and it's trying to be all things to all people," she said. That line aligns with the administration's broader case for restructuring, and it's a defensible position. The question is whether "mission creep" is being used as a scalpel or a sledgehammer.
One of the more striking moments came not from what Schwartz refused to answer, but from what she claimed not to know. She told senators she was unaware that CDC programs promoting vaccinations and preventing smoking had been curtailed under the current administration.
For a nominee who will oversee the agency's remaining workforce and its core public health functions, that claim of ignorance is hard to square with the months of public reporting on CDC upheaval. Whether it reflects genuine unfamiliarity or strategic caution, it did not reassure senators looking for a director willing to fight for the agency's mission.
Schwartz also declined to commit to taking down a CDC website that suggests a link between childhood vaccines and autism, a page that contradicts decades of scientific consensus and that critics say was posted under Kennedy's influence.
She did agree to look into two requests from Republican senators: whether AI data centers cause health problems, and whether to establish a World Trade Center Health Program clinical center in Florida. Those commitments, whatever their merits, were notably easier to make than the ones Democrats were asking for.
Schwartz shared the hearing with Sean Kaufman, Trump's pick for Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response. ASPR oversees preparations and response to public health emergencies and disasters, a role that could grow significantly under a planned HHS restructuring that would bring ASPR responsibilities under the CDC, though that change has not yet taken effect.
Kaufman brought his own baggage. Senators questioned him about past social media posts on LinkedIn, including one in which he expressed hatred for the CDC. He has made comments cheered by vaccine skeptics, argued against hepatitis B vaccinations for newborns, and said he served as an expert witness to advocate for people who refused the COVID-19 vaccine.
At the hearing, Kaufman said he supported mRNA technology and believes COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective, but said it made sense to study work done so far before proceeding, including learning more about any side effects. That position tracks with the administration's decision to cancel 22 projects totaling $500 million to develop vaccines using mRNA technology.
Sen. John Hickenlooper, a Colorado Democrat, pushed back, arguing that evaluations of mRNA work are the responsibility of other federal offices, not ASPR, and that the cancellations may slow the nation's ability to respond to emerging infectious threats. Breitbart reported that Kaufman's past statements raised concerns among multiple senators about whether he could separate personal skepticism from the agency's emergency preparedness mandate.
The backdrop to both nominations is an agency in visible distress. The loss of more than 3,000 employees, scientists, epidemiologists, program staff, has left the CDC operating with a skeleton of its former capacity. Newsmax reported that morale has plummeted across the agency amid the workforce losses and leadership churn.
Dr. David Margolius, director of Cleveland's health department and a leader in a coalition of big-city health departments, described the practical consequences for state and local officials who depend on CDC guidance.
"There's still really good people who work there," Margolius said of the CDC. "They are doing their best to navigate choppy waters."
But the operational reality, he said, is grim: "Basically everybody's got to kind of choose their own adventure, as opposed to being led by a national public health department."
That's a remarkable admission. When local health directors say they can no longer count on national leadership, the damage extends far beyond Washington. It means the next outbreak, the next contamination event, the next emerging pathogen hits a system where the center cannot hold.
Schwartz's financial disclosures show she will leave a lucrative position at UnitedHealth Group, where she earns approximately $850,000 in salary and bonus money, and cash out her stock options. She will resign from the boards of Butterfly Network Inc., a Massachusetts ultrasound device maker; Atlanta-based Aveanna Healthcare, a medical home care provider; and the Florida-based Searching for Solutions Institute.
Nobody questions her willingness to take a pay cut. The question is whether she will take a stand.
Kennedy has already shown what happens to CDC directors who cross him. Monarez lasted less than a month. Kennedy had promised not to change the nation's vaccination schedule, then said he was going to investigate the childhood vaccine schedule, then attempted a substantial rewrite of vaccine recommendations for kids, some of which a federal judge put on hold.
Schwartz pledged to follow the science. She pledged radical transparency. She declined to say what she would do when the science and her boss point in different directions.
The CDC needs a director who can rebuild trust, restore capacity, and defend the agency's core mission of protecting Americans from preventable health threats. Whether Schwartz is that person depends on whether "I don't speak in hypotheticals" is a negotiating posture, or a preview of how she'll govern.
An agency that has lost a quarter of its workforce and three directors in a matter of months doesn't need another placeholder. It needs someone willing to say what they mean before they're confirmed, not just after it's too late.
