CDC nominee Erica Schwartz faces scrutiny over science

Amid the U.S. Senate’s rush to confirm several Cabinet nominees before summer recess, the newest candidate for director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention testified before lawmakers on Wednesday.

Dr. Erica Schwartz, former deputy surgeon general and retired rear admiral in the U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned Corps, fielded questions on vaccine policy and ethical practice from the Senate’s Health, Education, Labor & Pensions Committee. Prior to the meeting, committee member Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C., posted a social media statement supporting Schwartz, as did former Surgeon General Jerome Adams.

Experts view Schwartz as qualified for the role, but after several seemingly unsatisfying exchanges with committee members Wednesday, the hourslong hearing adjourned with an impending committee vote and an inconclusive read on her confirmation prospects.

The CDC has been without a permanent director since August 2025, and Schwartz’s nomination marks the White House’s third attempt to fill the agency’s director position. The administration’s first pick, Dr. David Weldon, failed to land a confirmation hearing due to a lack of Senate support, and his runner-up, Dr. Susan Monarez, was confirmed to the role but then dismissed after serving just 29 days.

President Donald Trump announced Schwartz’s nomination in a Truth Social post in April, declaring that his newest pick would “restore the GOLD STANDARD OF SCIENCE at the CDC.”

But Chairman Bill Cassidy, R-La., who lost his recent bid for reelection to a Trump-endorsed candidate in the primaries, opened Wednesday’s meeting with a focus on misinformation and immunization.

“There is misinformation all over the place, including that hepatitis B vaccines can cause autism and things like that,” said Cassidy. “It is absurd and is undermining trust, and if part of what we’re trying to do is reestablish trust in public health, we have to wonder why people would spread that misinformation.”

Ranking Member Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., asked Schwartz whether she would commit to removing an official CDC webpage that suggests a potential link between infant immunization and autism. He referenced an analysis from the American Medical Association that concludes abundant evidence debunks that claim.

“We do not know what causes autism. One in 33 children have a diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder and we owe it to the American people to figure out why,” responded Schwartz.

Sanders interrupted Schwartz to ask whether she accepted evidence finding that vaccines do not cause autism, to which she responded, “I do accept that evidence.” When Sanders again asked if Schwartz would commit to removing the CDC website information on autism and vaccines, she responded that she would look at the website—but claimed that she had not seen the specific page yet.

When asked about another vaccine, the COVID-19 shot, Schwartz quickly affirmed that she does believe mRNA technology to be safe and effective.

Senators continued to grill Schwartz on immunizations, as well as her ability to maintain autonomy under the leadership of Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Former CDC Director Monarez claimed that Kennedy instructed her to make decisions in opposition to the ethics required of a public official. Monarez testified in September that Kennedy had directed her, on the threat of forced resignation, to commit to preapproving recommendations from the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices regardless of the scientific evidence, and to dismiss career officials responsible for vaccine policy without cause.

In light of Monarez’s experience, Sanders asked whether Schwartz would commit to report to Congress if she received directives to implement unscientific policies that could harm the health and well-being of the American people. Schwartz responded, “I do not believe that the president or the secretary would ever do what you just mentioned.”

In an April hearing, Kennedy declined to commit to supporting Schwartz’s prospective vaccine policies without interference. But for her part, Schwartz seemingly stuck to a script on Wednesday—consistently answering that she would go where the science leads when committee members posed hypothetical scenarios.

“I will never betray the science, ever,” said Schwartz in her testimony. “I will not have predetermined answers to conclusions. I will make sure that the CDC is focused on scientific rigor, that the CDC is focused on radical transparency.”

Dr. Georges C. Benjamin, a supporter of Schwartz and CEO of the nonprofit advocacy group American Public Health Association, said that the next director will be stepping into an unstable workforce as a result of the long vacancy at the CDC.

“You cannot have a unified response to anything when people are not in permanent positions,” said Benjamin. “Erica’s gonna have to have not only leadership skills, but strong management skills the minute she walks in the door.”

According to the Partnership for Public Service, a nonpartisan organization dedicated to improving government effectiveness, the CDC has experienced significant changes since the beginning of the Trump administration. The nonprofit found that the agency’s Senior Executive Service leadership shrunk by over 40% during President Trump’s first year back in office. Meanwhile, funding commitments for scientific research and development contracts at the CDC decreased by 79% from fiscal 2024 to 2025.

In a statement to WORLD, Chris Piper, a public policy manager at the Partnership for Public Service, wrote, “Vacancies harm agencies’ ability to undertake long-term planning and harm the public reliant on their services. … Federal agencies need consistent leaders in place to best carry out an administration’s agenda and provide guidance and strategic direction to the agency’s workforce.”

Benjamin said Schwartz’s biggest challenge lies with the politics involved in the CDC and the larger U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. But he suggested that one benefit of the timing of Schwartz’s appointment is that Secretary Kennedy will have a harder time firing a CDC director for the second time. With the upcoming midterms, Benjamin says there could be increased accountability for the agency.

“I think she will benefit from that overall change in the environment which she’ll be working in. Is it still gonna be tough? You bet. It’s gonna be real tough. But, she’s a skilled administrator,” said Benjamin. “[Kennedy] can always try to fire her, but the White House is going to be more involved in that decision.”

Lawrence Gostin, a public health law expert at Georgetown University, echoed Benjamin’s assessment.

“My gut instinct is that Secretary Kennedy is not happy with this pick but the White House has overruled him. His anti-vaccine policy has been very unpopular in the country, and the President wants to shore up support before the mid-terms,” Gostin told me in an email. “[Schwartz] is a strong scientific leader. If she can resist political influence, she will succeed in righting the ship.”

But Gostin added: “It will be very hard for her to push back against Secretary Kennedy.”

Schwartz has little room for error if she wants to advance to the full Senate for a vote. Republicans currently hold a razor-thin 12-11 majority in the Senate Health, Education, Labor & Pensions Committee. That means Schwartz needs every Republican to support her, including Cassidy, or needs a Democratic lawmaker to break ranks.