Bulwark Takes - Mysterious “Secret Recording” Accusations Roil CDC Hearing

Episode Date: September 17, 2025

Sam Stein and Jonathan Cohn recap the Senate HELP hearing with former CDC chief Susan Monarez, covering why she was ousted, RFK Jr.’s push to delay childhood vaccines, the sidelining of CDC scientists during outbreaks, and the real stakes with public health and vaccine safety. Read Jonathan’s The Breakdown, “RFK Jr.’s Crusade Against Vaccines Hits Its Action Phase”

Grab a coffee and discover non-stop action with BudMGM Casino. Check out our hottest exclusive. Friends of one with Multi-Drop. Once even more options. Play our wide variety of table games. Or head over to the arcade for nostalgic casino thrills only available at BetMGM. Download the BetMGM Ontario app today. 19 plus to wager, Ontario only.

Please play responsibly. If you have questions or concerns about your gambling or someone close to you, please contact Connix Ontario at 1866-531-2600 to speak to an advisor free of charge. But MGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with Eye Gaming Ontario. Cohn, author of our breakdown newsletter, who is going to talk to us about a just-concluded Senate help committee hearing involving Dr. Susan Menares, formerly the head of the CDC. This comes a couple weeks after she was dismissed, fired by President Trump ultimately, which came a little bit after three top CDC officials resigned in protest over RFK Jr.

And what he's doing to the agency. There's a lot to unpack here, like a metric ton to impact here. We'll start with the actual most important stuff and then get to the political stuff. There were a few moments where Dr. Minara's talked about things that are about to happen with respect to vaccines in this country. We have a very important meeting coming up in the next day and then the day after that with the CDC's Advisory Committee on Vaccines. And they're going to be looking at things like the Hepatitis B vaccine recommendations,

childhood vaccine schedule, and so on and so forth. There was real news made in this hearing about what. what's to come. Jonathan, why don't you want to unpack that? Yeah, yeah. Yeah,

there was a lot of discussion about the Hep B vaccine. Hep B real quickly, hepatitis B, liver disease. We have a vaccine that we currently recommend is given to newborns right after birth, like the first day now. And the reason is children can get it very easily at birth in their early months.

And if they do, there's a 90% chance that they develop a chronic version that can develop cirrhosis, liver cancer, really horrible stuff. Actually, what I wrote about today at the breakdown in my newsletter is all about this. We knew there's been reporting that Kennedy was interested and his people were interested in changing the recommendation and pushing back that first dose. There's been some reporting. That effect, there's an item on the agenda for this week. There's this meeting coming up this week to reconsider what is on the childhood vaccine schedule.

But we have, you know, the agenda doesn't say what they're considering. and there was just sort of these vague reports. I thought it was newsworthy, and I haven't seen every single thing written, so maybe this has been out there. But it sounded newsworthy to me that Deborah Howery, who is one of the career scientists who resigned when Minarez was pushed out, she said she heard directly from Kennedy in his office that they wanted to push back the recommendation and push it all the way back to four years.

So you wouldn't have kids. Yeah. Yeah. So you wouldn't get your first dose of the Hep B vaccine until you're four years old, which Just to think about this for a second. Those four years, very easy to get exposed to hepatitis B, if not at birth, from a caregiver, from an adult or doesn't even know they have. I mean, it's one of those diseases. It's super easy to transmit.

And again, horrible stuff happens. People die from complications of Hep B. And again, just to take a story from my newsletter today, you know, I spoke to a doctor who's up in Alaska and used to treat these patients. he told this just heart-wrenching stories about watching children die from liver cancer. And we've mostly wiped that out by giving that early dose, and now we have confirmation that Kennedy wants to push it back. Right. And that was the focus of a lot of the hearing, what was going to happen with the Hep B vaccine.

And as you mentioned, Dr. Hauri, who was the chief medical officer and the deputy director of program for programming science at the CDC. She was one of the three that resigned. Let's play this quick clip because there was that. And then there was the vaccine schedule for children, which Dr. Susan Menara says, her quote, the childhood vaccine schedule would be changing starting in September. Let's play that clip. Ever communicated is going to change the childhood vaccination schedule?

In not until that very day. In that morning meeting, he said that the childhood vaccine schedule would be changing starting in September. And I needed to be on board with it. Did he ever suggest that the president was that he, he was speaking for the president? In that morning meeting, he did say that he had spoken to the president. He spoke to the president every day about changing the childhood vaccine schedule. There's a lot going on, right?

There's the autism study that RFK is supposedly going to unveil this month. There's the ASIP meeting that's coming. And then, now this, what could it be in store with the childhood vaccine schedule, Jonathan? I mean, they could change all kinds of things. They could change the measles recommendation. They could say it's linked to autism, which it's not. I mean, this has been studied extensively, but, you know, Kennedy and his supporters insist that there's a link there.

We could see changes in the pertussis vaccine for hooping cough. Pretty much most of the major vaccines now that children are given at one point or another have come in for criticism from RFK Jr., from his allies. And the fact that he's sort of presenting it this way, too, is like, we're going to change this. You better be ready. I mean, this was the whole pretext or what seems to have prompted the final break and how she gets fired. he comes to her and says, are you going to approve, you know, according to her, this is her version, are you going to approve these recommendations from the new committee that I've been solved, which he's packed with his allies.

And she's like, I can't pre-approved them. I have to look at the evidence. And that leads to her in pushing her out. And, yeah. Well, that's sort of the overarching theme of this hearing with Hari and Manaras, which is basically they concluded they had been completely sidelined for political people. Menard was, according to her, was told, you know, you have to just sign off on these recommendations. I think at one point she's told, don't even talk to the career scientists, talk to the

deals directly with the political people. And then there was, you mentioned measles. Harry had this kind of interesting moment where they're talking about the measles outbreak in Texas that killed a couple of kids. You know, she just reveals that, you know, even though this falls under her jurisdiction, that she has the scientific expertise within the agency to handle these types of things that she never once was asked to brief Kennedy on the matter. Let's take a listen to that. Did HHS's response to the measles outbreak earlier this year differ from its response to other

infectious disease outbreaks in your previous interactions with the department? Yes, in several ways. First, I never briefed the secretary, as did the center director who oversaw measles, never briefed the secretary. And an outbreak response, usually you would be briefing leadership. The second thing is he said things like vaccines had fetal parts. And I had to send a note to our leadership team to correct that misinformation. We were also asked to include things like Budesinide and Clarothermiasin and our toolkits for physicians.

And I couldn't allow that as there wasn't evidence for that and would result in harm. There you have it. It's just basically a complete sidelining of the scientific personnel here. favor of the political personnel, which precipitated this decision by the actual scientists to say, you know what, we can't do this anymore. Or at least we can't put our names on this, knowing that it could be deeply harmful to the American public. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, look, you, you know, this is another one of those where, like, there's been some reporting that, you know, during the Texas measles outbreak, there weren't the usual briefings going on. But to hear it from her, from Howard,

to say, I was never brought in is really quite powerful. Just a remarkable statement. I mean, you have this outbreak going on. You have the leading experts on this at CDC, and they're not being consulted. And don't let's not forget the other stuff she said, which was, you know, we were, she said like they were busy sort of basically putting out fires because Kennedy's going out there spreading misinformation about the vaccine, asking them to push unproven or dangerous therapies. And by the way, when Kennedy was pushing his alternative therapies, you know, taking vitamins or

whatever, that had real consequences because you had people, parents, who thought this was the right thing to do, kept their kids home and gave them, you know, with these treatments that didn't necessarily make them better. Was it inverectum or whatever the hell it's called? I don't know. You know, and there was a whole bunch of stuff. And sometimes the kids got worse. Sometimes they got vitamin, you know, poisoning from certain, you know, supplements they took. So this is really hazardous. And, you know, and but, you know, the pattern here and everything in this kept coming up today over and over again is that they're assigned to the CDC. You can think they make good, you know, Whatever you think about the agency as a whole and decisions at a whole, these are the people who actually know what they're talking about being sidelined for Kennedy's political people. And again, maybe you think the CDC people know at their time. Maybe you don't. Maybe you're not happy with it in COVID. But just do you really trust them less than RFK's handpicked, you know, yes people? I think you're almost underselling it, honestly, because it's not that he just said, hey, trust the political people more. According to Menaro, he had a.

a real hatred for the CDC. I mean, the way she described, again, this is one-sided, I understand, but I will, and I'm going to stress this repeatedly. This is Donald Trump's choice to head the CDC, who RFK Jr. praised when she was nominated, who's confirmed on a party line vote with all Republicans voting for her. So it's not like, you know, suddenly, and this was on July 29th of this year. So it's not like, you know, this is some holdover from the Biden era. Let's play the clip about how RFK, according to her, described people. at the CDC. He made another set of assertions associated with CDC that were particularly pointed and particularly hurtful and disparaging. He called in that context,

CDC the most corrupt federal agency in the world, emphasized that CD employees were horrible people. He had said that, I'm sorry, he said that CDC employees were killing children and they don't care. He said that CDC employees were bought by the pharmaceutical industry. He said CDC forced people to wear masks and social distance like a dictatorship. And the one I think that hurt me the most was a particularly vivid phrase, he said, during the COVID outbreak. CDC told hospitals to turn away sick COVID patients until they had blue lips before allowing them to get treatment. And it is fair to say, in your view, that those statements are not true. Those statements are not true. Thank you. All right. So horrible people who are, quote,

killing children and don't care. That's not like I need to side on these people. It's that I detest these people. I think they are bad people. And it really, it makes it incompatible for him to run that agency, frankly. It does. And look, like you said, this is her recollection. So maybe, you know, whatever. On the other hand, we've heard what he said publicly. We hear what said all the time publicly on social media by people in his orbit. That does not sound out of character. We all saw him. We saw what he said before he became HHS secretary. It's like verbatim what he was saying about the CDC. It was. And it's remarkable. And just can we pause for a second and talk about CDC scientists? Again, I'm not here to tell they made all the right decisions or make all the right

or they're always right. No one is. But, you know, CDC scientists have enormous skills. They could make gobs of money in the private sector. People like this, they'd spend 10, 20, 30 years working in CDC making less money than they could in the private sector because they really care about public health. They really care about public servants. And to go after these people, not just say they're wrong, but to question their motives, to say they are killing children and don't care. I mean, that is, it's not the legal definition of slander, but it certainly is the moral definition slander. Yeah, no, 100%. Now, look, this was, I guess it's important to step back about the politics at this point because Bill Cassie's chairing the committee. He's a sympathetic year here

to Menares, and he clearly comes across that way during the hearings. Obviously, all the Democrats, you know, invested in figuring out what happened between her and RFK Jr. And then you had Tim Kame even saying, I regret, like, I regret voting against you and saying, I didn't think you had the backbone. So there's that. On the Republican side of the aisle, though there was, I don't know if it was a divide so much as sort of an interesting form of pushback. There was the anti-vaxxers themselves, the Vax skeptics themselves, I should say, Rand Paul and Roger Marshall, both former doctors or current doctors, which is shocking. So they push back a little bit on this, and we can get into the RAND stuff a little bit,

although I'm not sure it's worth it. And then there's this other line of argument that came out of nowhere for me. But it was clearly the line that the Republicans were wrong for, which is they wanted to portray her as a partisan actor, as someone who is being used almost by anti-Trump forces to make life miserable for the president. And they kept on repeating stuff like, who are your lawyers? Her lawyers are Abby Lull and Mark Zaid, who are both prominent fixtures in the D.C. And it happened to represent a number of people who are pushing back against Trump. I would say Abby Lowell, I believe, represented the Trump kids at one point, but putting that aside. And then they kept asking, well, doesn't the president have the right to fire you?

Isn't this his call? And she said, yes, of course. I'm going to get to the most interesting exchange with Mark Wayne Mullen in a little bit. But let's play Ashley Moody first. What attorneys are here with you at this hearing assisting with your testimony and whispering in your ear? Please state their names for the record. My two attorneys that are in the room would be happy to follow up with you after the discussion. So, Mr. Chairman, I would like the record to reflect that you have called a hearing of two people who have hired anti-Trump lawyers.

When did you hire them? I sought their counsel. I believe on the day around on or before the day I was fired. And is now refusing now that they're in the courtroom and held. with testimony and passing notes on what to say, refusing to give their names to those of us that may not know their names. I mean, is there a reason you don't want to give their names? Are you no? No. Afraid that it's going to come unraveled that you have this whole network of people that's trying to embarrass the president or go after the president and now you are joining this group.

Why don't you want to give their names? their names have been publicly associated with them. They issued public remarks early on after me. Let me ask your colleague. I've noticed they've also been giving you notes too and whispering to you. Will you state their names? So their names are Abby Loll and Mark Zade. That wasn't too hard. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. All right. So there you have it. Moody's just sort of like, why don't you name your lawyers? And she just says they're there. They're right there. You know that it's public record. What did you make of this line of attack? Yeah, so it took me a minute. You were, you were quicker to pick up on it than I was. I was like, what are they even doing here? Why are we talking about who their lawyers on whatever? But you're right. I mean, this was they want to paint her as a partisan actor. This was all some conspiracy, you know, to make bad. And the easiest way to rebut that is what you just said before is. This doesn't make sense. Two months ago, she was their choice to run the agency. They couldn't say enough good things about her. And she's a career civil servant, no, you know, no sign that she's got any hidden political agenda. In fact, as Tim Kane apologized at this. this meeting, Democrats were suspicious of her. There's just no evidence at all that she's a partisan actor. But you can see that's what they're trying to do. They're trying to disparage her. And I think it's telling that, you know, given their five minutes, they could have gone after

a sign. They could have questioned her on science. I mean, one of them did bring up COVID stuff, which, you know, again, I think that's a vulnerable. And you want to talk about CDC or is that's the place to go. Yeah. That's not what they did. They're just trying to undermine her credibility. As a partisan actor, which isn't going to work for someone they were praising six weeks ago. Well, yeah, and Moody, I should know, Ashley, she voted for Menars' confirmation. So it's like, they all did, right? All the Republicans? Yeah, all of them did.

Rand Paul did. Rand Paul doesn't vote for anything. He voted for that. A couple other notes that I just picked up on, which I think but just this point. One was at least two senators on the Republicans said that out. They're all given five minutes to do the questioning. At least two of them couldn't even fill out the five minutes. Why is that important?

Well, to me it means that they were very laser-focused. on just trying to question not her credentials, but her partisan leanings. And once they ran out of those types of questions, they didn't have any use for her. Never mind that she had like blown the whistle on potentially horrific changes to our childhood vaccine schedule or RFK Jr. not being up to the task of running this agency or just cast out the agency, stuff that you would conceivably want to get to the bottom of if you're on this committee with oversight. They were just done once they had that question. And then came this really bizarre exchange with Mark Wayne Mullen, another senator on the

committee Republican, where he heavily implied that there was a recording of a confrontation between Menares and RFK Jr. Now, I need to back up a second here, because when RFK Jr. was in front of the Senate last week, the Senate Finance Committee, he said that one of the reasons he fired Minars is that he asked her, are you trustworthy? And according to RFK Jr., she responded, I am not trustworthy, which Jonathan has said that to me, and I was baffled when he told me that he was not trustworthy, else would admit freely that you are not trustworthy. It doesn't make any sense. Jonathan's not even laughing, but it was a joke.

Secondly is... It took me a second to pick up. I was like, I'm running through my head. I'm like, was there a Jonathan on this Senate committee? Oh, yes. Okay, so that, we will not edit that out. Secondly is, Monars was asked about this a couple of times prior to Mark Wayne Mullen, and she said, no, no, no, I never said I was not trust.

Where they said, if you cannot trust me, if you do not trust me, then you should fire me. And I told him, if he could not trust me, he could fire me. So that's all back and forth. Then Mark Wynne gets up there and he starts questioning her. And he implies very heavily that there's an actual audio recording of this confrontation. And that she should be very careful because she's under oath about how she describes it. And that she knows that it will come out. It was a recorded meeting.

So you can testify one way. or you can prove that you're lying or give him and be honest with this committee. And I'm giving you the opportunity to be honest here because you've been really walking around the edges and not being truthful. No one that I'm talking to in this universe at the CDC in the health community has any idea what he's talking about. In fact, I texted Mark's aide after the fact and I was like, what is he talking about? Do you have any idea? And Mark's aide sent me an emoticon and it's this one. so there's that we'll find out if there's a recording i'm not you know it's not like mark

way and mullin uh can just hint at it and then not say anything about it and in fact bill cassidy comes back to the hearing and says this i understand senator mullen implied there's a recording of the meeting or meetings between dr minarez and secretary kennedy uh i will note that if materials have been provided to senator mullen and invoked an official committee business, their committee records, and all other senators on the committee have the right to see those records. This is allegiance to President Trump's values. And so I'd ask that that recording be released. I'll also note that we put in a request for any documents or communications that would bring transparency to the situation. We have not yet received those documents.

If a recording does not exist, I ask Senator Mullen to retract his line of questions. All right. So more drama here. Again, I think we're going to find out if there's a recording for obvious reasons. It's just I don't know. I guess it symbolizes just how everything is done through a political lens. And that's just it. We're doomed to this. Because to me, it's like, I don't really give a shit if she told RFK Jr. She's untrust whether or not. I care what's happening to our vaccines and whether we're disregarding scientists and the fact that the CDC is now gutted. I think I think Hari said there's that Dr. R. said there's not even a scientist at her level left anymore. So maybe I'm crazy to think that this is a side show. But to me, it is a side show, honestly. Well, saying, if that's being crazy, I don't want to be sane. Is there like a country song or something like that? Yeah, I mean, that was my reaction to me. Look, you know, my entire history is a reporter, Sam, yours, as you know, two people remember a conversation. It's never exactly what one remembers the other. I'm sure there's somewhere in between. I will say listening to her

version and his version. Her sounds way more credible to me. No one says, hey, yeah, I'm trustworthy. Actually, I have a theory of how it goes. Yeah, okay. This is my theory. RFK Jr. at one point said, you're not trustworthy. And Minarra's replies, oh, I'm not trustworthy. And then RFK Jr. says, see, you admitted it. You're not trust it. You just said it. And then that's that. And so suddenly she's screwed. Yeah. It's so darn. I mean, look, the level we're at, that doesn't know. implausible to me. But like you said, at the end of the day, whether she said or he said that is so far

down the list of things we should be caring about when we're talking about, you know, scaling back these vaccines that have saved, you know, tens, hundreds, thousands, millions of lives over the years. We're talking about gutting the agencies that protect us. You know, they didn't get a lot of attention, but it came up a few times. You know, we depend on CDC for, you know, to protect not just against pandemics, but bioterror attacks, and the agency's been decimated. The people who know about this stuff are gone, are we ready? And that's what's important here. And like you said, Republicans could have engaged on that.

Instead, they're engaging in this conspiracy theory about something that doesn't really at the end of the day matter. I think just to distract and I guess maybe either avoid political damage or, you know, as usual is often the case in these hearings you know play for the audience of one although i get that's he was more focused on the other hearing going on today yeah that would be the cash patel one all right jonathan thank you so much man i appreciate it and i do really recommend anyone who's watching this read jonathan's the breakdown newsletter and subscribe to that today's edition which as jonathan mentioned does look at the hepatitis vaccine and what could happen if it is to go or even be delayed

to the age of four uh it's really deeply important stuff i mean it cuts through the noise in ways that I don't think many people are doing. So thank you for that as well, Jonathan. With that, I'll see you later. Thanks, everyone. Talk to you soon.