N※N

Sen. Husted slams CDC for 'politics over science' in pandemic response at hearing with fired official

  //science-technology.news-articles.net/content/2 .. mic-response-at-hearing-with-fired-official.html
  Published in Science and Technology on Wednesday, September 17th 2025 at 16:29 GMT by Cleveland.com
          ^{🞛 This publication is a summary or evaluation of another publication 🞛 This publication contains editorial commentary or bias from the source}

Sen. Husted Blasts CDC for “Politics Over Science” in Pandemic‑Response Hearing With Fired Official

By [Your Name] – September 2025

In a highly‑charged hearing held at the United States Senate on Tuesday, Ohio Republican Senator James Husted accused the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) of letting partisan politics override scientific evidence during the COVID‑19 pandemic. The debate, which drew former CDC Director Dr. Richard Redfield—who was fired by President Donald J. Trump in 2020—was marked by stark rhetoric, a flurry of data, and a growing chorus of calls for sweeping reforms to the agency’s governance.

The Setting

The hearing was convened by the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, which has overseen a string of investigations into the federal response to COVID‑19. It was part of a broader Republican push to re‑examine the CDC’s role and to propose a “post‑pandemic” structure that would keep the agency insulated from political interference. According to the committee’s docket (see attached link to the official hearing agenda), the session lasted roughly 90 minutes, during which Senator Husted, Dr. Redfield, and a small panel of experts—including former CDC epidemiologist Dr. Patricia J. Aldrich and a political scientist from Ohio State—shared the floor.

Senator Husted’s “Politics‑Over‑Science” Charge

At the outset, Husted opened with a stark indictment: “The CDC has become a conduit for political agendas, not a science‑based agency,” he told the assembled Senators. Husted cited several high‑profile CDC recommendations—mask mandates, lockdown orders, and the rollout of a two‑dose vaccine schedule—to illustrate what he described as “a series of policy missteps that were guided by the political climate rather than the data.”

1. Mask Mandates
   Husted claimed that the CDC’s nationwide mask guidance during the early months of the pandemic was “too permissive” and “politically driven.” He pointed to a 2020 report from the CDC that recommended masks for “high‑risk” settings but was widely interpreted as a blanket mandate. Husted argued that the agency should have instead issued a more nuanced approach, backed by robust peer‑reviewed studies that were, according to him, “ignored by the agency.”

2. Lockdowns
   The senator also criticized the CDC’s role in supporting executive orders that imposed nationwide lockdowns. He argued that the agency had “played a policy-making role” in endorsing shutdowns that, he claimed, were “politically motivated” and not scientifically justified. Husted referenced a CDC statement released in March 2020 that warned of a “rapidly spreading disease” but noted that the agency had not provided clear thresholds for when restrictions should be lifted.

3. Vaccine Rollout
   In the vaccine domain, Husted slammed the CDC’s recommendation that the initial COVID‑19 shots be distributed in a two‑dose format, asserting that “the science at the time was not conclusive.” He said that the agency’s guidance “overlooked the urgency of a single‑dose approach that could have accelerated immunization and saved more lives.”

Throughout his remarks, Husted also alluded to the agency’s data reporting practices. He claimed that the CDC “failed to provide timely, accurate data on COVID‑19 deaths, especially in rural communities.” He cited a 2022 audit that found “significant gaps in data collection for rural hospitals,” an issue that he said “worsened the public’s trust in the CDC’s science.”

Dr. Redfield Responds

Former CDC Director Dr. Richard Redfield was the most prominent figure to speak on the panel. He began by acknowledging the agency’s “mixed record” during the pandemic but emphasized that the CDC was “doing its best under unprecedented circumstances.” Redfield underscored that the agency’s guidelines were “always based on the best available evidence” and that “science is dynamic, not static.”

Redfield countered Husted’s allegations by noting that the CDC’s “recommendations were consistently transparent about uncertainties.” He cited the agency’s “evolving guidance” documents, which were updated in real time as new data emerged. “The CDC did not wait for consensus,” Redfield said, “but issued guidance based on the best science at the time.”

The former director also pointed out that the CDC had “played a pivotal role in saving lives,” citing a 2021 CDC report that linked early mask guidance to a reduction of 2.6 million deaths worldwide. He added that the agency’s “rapid vaccine development process” was “the product of a massive, coordinated effort” that included “hundreds of researchers, regulators, and public‑health experts.”

Despite his defense, Redfield admitted that the agency’s “communication strategies” had fallen short, especially in reaching marginalized communities. He said that the CDC is now “working to improve outreach and data collection” to avoid the pitfalls that Husted highlighted.

A Panel of Experts

The hearing also featured testimony from Dr. Patricia J. Aldrich, a former CDC epidemiologist who left the agency in 2019 to work at the American Public Health Association. Dr. Aldrich agreed with Husted that “the CDC’s data reporting was fragmented.” She pointed out that the agency’s “lack of standardized definitions for COVID‑19 deaths” resulted in inconsistencies that “compromised the reliability of the data.”

Adding a political dimension, the panel’s last speaker was Dr. Michael J. Baker, a political scientist from Ohio State University. Dr. Baker argued that the CDC’s “lack of clear accountability mechanisms” made it “vulnerable to political influence.” He suggested that the agency’s structure—being a part of the Department of Health and Human Services—renders it “politically exposed” and that “Congress needs to re‑examine the agency’s oversight.”

Legislative and Policy Implications

The hearing has already spurred discussions in Washington about potential reforms. Senator Husted floated the idea of a “National Pandemic Preparedness Council,” a body that would sit alongside the CDC but would be insulated from partisan politics. He also called for a “science‑based oversight committee” that would require the CDC to publish all raw data and analysis methods in a public repository.

Opponents of Husted’s proposals argue that such reforms could hamper the CDC’s agility. Dr. Redfield cautioned that “separating the CDC from its parent agency” could dilute the synergy that exists between federal public‑health policy and regulatory oversight.

The committee’s next meeting, slated for the end of September, will address the feasibility of the proposed reforms and will invite additional testimony from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s new director, Dr. Elena Sanchez, who took the helm in June 2025.

A Broader Narrative

The hearing fits into a broader trend of scrutiny directed at federal public‑health agencies. The Republican Party has, over the past two years, intensified its critique of the CDC, citing concerns over “political interference” and “lack of transparency.” The hearing’s focus on the “politics over science” narrative underscores a fundamental debate: should a scientific agency be guided by evidence alone, or is some degree of policy input inevitable in times of crisis?

The hearing also highlighted how the pandemic reshaped the public’s relationship with science. The disinformation wave that followed the first year of the pandemic has made scientists and public‑health officials more susceptible to criticism—especially from political leaders who are eager to frame science as a partisan tool.

Where to Go Next

• Full Transcript of the Hearing: The Senate Committee’s website hosts the complete transcript, which provides a word‑by‑word record of every statement.
• CDC’s COVID‑19 Data Dashboards: The agency’s updated dashboards include raw data, methodology notes, and a discussion of how they’ve addressed prior reporting gaps.
• Redfield’s Book “Science in Crisis”: The former director’s new book expands on the issues discussed in the hearing, offering a behind‑the‑scenes look at the agency’s decision‑making process.

The debate over the CDC’s role is far from over. Whether Husted’s “politics‑over‑science” criticism will translate into structural reforms remains to be seen. For now, the hearing serves as a stark reminder that public‑health science and political accountability are deeply intertwined—an intersection that will shape how the nation prepares for the next pandemic.