During a recent hearing at the Senate Finance Committee, Vice President J.D. Vance came to the defense of Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. after a tough round of questioning from Democratic senators. Vance, expressing his frustration, took to social media, proclaiming, “When I see all these senators trying to lecture and ‘gotcha’ Bobby Kennedy today, all I can think is: You all support off-label, untested, and irreversible hormonal ‘therapies’ for children, mutilating our kids and enriching big pharma. You’re full of sh** and everyone knows it.”
The tension in the room was palpable as senators like Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Bernie Sanders of Vermont pressed Kennedy on his controversial vaccine policies. Warren, notably animated, accused him of undermining access to vaccines for the public, stating, “Last week you announced the COVID vaccine is no longer approved for healthy people under the age of 65.” Kennedy countered without hesitation, asserting, “Anyone can get it, senator. It’s not recommended for healthy people.”
The debate escalated as Warren insisted that Kennedy’s recommendations could limit access, arguing, “If you don’t recommend it, then the consequence of that in many states is that you can’t walk into a pharmacy and get one. It means insurance companies don’t have to cover the $200 or so cost.” Kennedy firmly defended his stance, saying, “We’re not going to recommend a product for which there is no clinical data for that indication.” He later added, “Most Americans are going to be able to get in from their pharmacy for free.”
Warren continued to scrutinize Kennedy’s sincerity, reminding him of a promise he made during his confirmation hearing: “That was your promise!” Kennedy quickly retorted, “I never promised that I was going to recommend products for which there is no indication!” This exchange highlighted the charged atmosphere, underscoring the contentious relationship between Kennedy and certain Democratic lawmakers.
Sanders, in a parallel line of questioning, brought up campaign contributions from the pharmaceutical industry. He claimed, “Every single Republican has received PAC money from the pharmaceutical industry. Are they all corrupt as well?” Kennedy’s response was succinct: “I don’t even know what you’re talking about.” The senator’s deflection pointed to a broader narrative shared among politicians accused of undue influence from corporate donors.
Wyden, another Democratic senator, escalated the rhetoric, suggesting that Kennedy’s policies were putting children at risk. He demanded, “How many preventable child deaths are an acceptable sacrifice for enacting an agenda that I think is fundamentally cruel and defies common sense?” Kennedy’s rebuttal was sharp, reminding Wyden of his long tenure in the Senate: “Senator, you’ve sat in that chair for 20, 25 years while the chronic disease in our children went up to 76 percent. And you said nothing. You never asked the question why it’s happening — why is this happening?”
Such comments reflect Kennedy’s willingness to turn the spotlight back on his inquisitors, challenging their motives and questioning their track records. The controversies played out dramatically, with social media capturing key moments, including one where Kennedy’s response to Wyden’s critique went viral.
Financial disclosures paint a complex picture: Warren has received approximately $1.3 million from the pharmaceutical and health products industries over her career, while Sanders has garnered about $1.95 million since 1990. Wyden is reported to have received $1.2 million during the same time frame.
Polling data further illustrates Kennedy’s growing approval rating. An InsiderAdvantage poll published last week indicated that 52 percent of likely voters approve of his performance, while only 33 percent disapprove. Kennedy emerged with strong favorability ratings, surpassing many rivals in the current political landscape. Critics often fail to recognize that these popular sentiments may stem from public fatigue with established political figures and systems.
In the end, the hearing highlighted not just Kennedy’s potential as a disruptor in Washington, but also the ongoing clash of ideals within the political arena. His ability to hold his ground against aggressive questioning showcased a steadfast commitment to his principles, even in the face of considerable opposition.
"*" indicates required fields
