HHS Ends Decades of Public Input in Policy Decisions Under RFK Jr.’s Leadership
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s Controversial Policy Change Ends Public Comment on Key HHS Regulations
In a move that’s sparked widespread concern, Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has announced a policy change that eliminates public participation in certain rulemaking processes. For over 50 years, the public had the right to weigh in on proposed regulations through the notice-and-comment period — a process that allowed medical professionals, advocacy groups, and affected individuals to offer their perspectives. Now, with this new rule, the HHS can bypass this feedback loop when creating policies related to agency management, personnel, public property, loans, grants, benefits, and contracts. This decision raises fears that policies impacting vulnerable communities could be fast-tracked without considering those most directly affected.
Why Public Input Matters in Shaping Health Policy
The practice of public comments has long been seen as a cornerstone of democracy within government agencies like HHS. It gives various stakeholders — from healthcare providers to advocacy organizations — the opportunity to present evidence, highlight potential problems, and influence policies that shape public health. Critics argue that removing this input undermines both transparency and accountability. By sidelining the people who experience the real-world impact of these policies, there’s a risk of creating one-sided regulations that lack nuance and inclusivity. This concern is especially pressing in fields like public health, where broad and diverse perspectives are crucial for effective, equitable decision-making.
Contradicting Promises of Transparency and Accountability
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. once promised “radical transparency” as part of his vision for HHS, but this recent policy shift seems at odds with that commitment. The elimination of the notice-and-comment process directly contradicts the principles of openness and accountability outlined in the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Critics argue that this move protects the department from scrutiny and reduces opportunities for oversight, effectively insulating leadership from public feedback and weakening the democratic foundation of policymaking.
A Departure from Long-Standing Policy and Legal Precedents
This policy overturns the “Richardson Waiver,” a rule established in 1971 that ensured greater public involvement in shaping HHS regulations. The waiver, introduced by then-Assistant Secretary Rodney H. Brady, emphasized that public participation outweighed any inconvenience caused by the comment period. By rescinding this policy, Kennedy has upended a long-held practice that balanced administrative efficiency with democratic input. Legal experts suggest this shift may conflict with the 2019 Supreme Court ruling in Azar v. Allina Health Services, which required HHS to follow notice-and-comment procedures in certain cases, even when not explicitly mandated by the APA.
Far-Reaching Implications for Public Health and Funding Decisions
The effects of this policy change could ripple far beyond internal management issues, influencing vital public health initiatives and funding decisions. Recently, HHS postponed a key vaccine committee meeting at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, citing the need for more time to gather public input. However, Kennedy’s new policy suggests a broader trend of sidelining public feedback — a move that could impact research funding, medical guidelines, and healthcare services. Lawsuits have already emerged, with National Institutes of Health grantees challenging HHS’s funding cuts made without a comment period. As the agency moves toward a faster but less transparent decision-making process, the stakes for public health and community trust continue to grow.