New Leadership & New Policies: Navigating Healthcare and Life Sciences in the Trump Administration

Overview

The new administration is moving quickly to appoint new leaders and policies across the public and private sector. The pace has been extraordinary, with President Trump signing more than 70 executive orders impacting broad swaths of public health, scientific research and healthcare delivery. And the recent confirmation of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (RFK Jr.) as Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) has already ushered in the formation of the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) Commission to combat the many challenges associated with chronic disease.

These developments bring many challenges, opportunities and implications for health and life sciences organizations, as well as for other industry sectors that support and rely on a strong public health foundation for their workforce and operating environments. A global and multisector lens is essential, as the ripple effects of public health policies and industry shifts extend beyond healthcare, impacting sectors such as technology, finance, manufacturing and beyond, all of which must navigate these changes to maintain operational resilience and sustainability.

The Current Landscape: Rapid Change on All Fronts

Following the November 2024 election, President Trump announced his healthcare cabinet selections, including RFK Jr., who has now been sworn in as HHS Secretary. On “Day One” of his second term, the president began issuing numerous executive actions, including many that directly impact health and science. While much remains to be seen, there are early indications of potential themes and priorities.

RFK Jr. has been critical of current U.S. healthcare policy, as well as pharmaceutical and food industries, and there is a high likelihood he may call for sweeping changes from infectious disease research to pharmaceutical marketing practices. A long-time critic of vaccinations, RFK Jr. has called for a review of all vaccination policies, including mandatory vaccinations for children. While Secretary Kennedy has vowed to support vaccines and not interfere with their availability, in his confirmation hearings he declined to walk back his claims that vaccines cause autism.

Secretary Kennedy has also stated that he wants to review advisory committee membership, which could include grantmaking NIH panels, CDC vaccine advisory committees, and panels for FDA, where many members have relationships with the pharmaceutical industry through past research efforts. Following Secretary Kennedy’s swearing-in, a meeting of key experts advising the CDC on immunization practices was postponed, with no new date set. This has raised global concerns about the intent behind the delay.

Additional health cabinet nominees who, once confirmed, will reshape U.S. health policy, include:

Dr. Mehmet Oz, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. A well-known TV host and lifestyle influencer, Oz has expressed support for Medicare Advantage, stating that he aims to expand the program, though he also has cited concerns about waste, fraud and abuse in the system. As the public sector payor in the United States, CMS coverage for programs like Medicare, Medicaid, the Affordable Care Act and CHIP plays a crucial role in shaping healthcare access, while collaborating with private sector payors to establish policies and reimbursement structures and this tone will impact international engagement and perception.

Dr. Marty Makary, Food and Drug Administration. A trained surgeon and cancer specialist currently practicing at Johns Hopkins Medicine, Makary is closely aligned with RFK Jr. on several topics. He has decried the overprescribing of drugs, the use of pesticides on foods and the influence of pharmaceutical and insurance companies over doctors and government regulators. He held contrarian views during the COVID-19 pandemic, criticizing vaccine policies and what he believed to be government misinformation. Under Kennedy, he has said he will work to “properly evaluate harmful chemicals poisoning our nation’s food supply and drugs and biologics.” The impact of the FDA on global healthcare is significant, as its regulatory standards for food, drugs and medical devices often set a benchmark for other countries, influencing international safety protocols, shaping pharmaceutical markets and driving innovation in medical treatments and technologies worldwide.

Dr. Dave Weldon, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. An internal medicine doctor and former representative of a central Florida congressional district, Weldon is a long-time vaccine skeptic, was a founding member of the Congressional Autism Caucus, and has been an outspoken critic of CDC and its vaccine program. In the past, he has proposed that vaccine safety responsibility move to an independent agency within HHS, which would mean removing that task from the purview of the CDC. The CDC plays a critical role globally by not only leading efforts in vaccine development and distribution but also by providing expertise in disease prevention, health surveillance and emergency response to health threats worldwide. Through collaboration with international health organizations, the CDC helps to strengthen public health systems, address global health disparities and respond to emerging infectious diseases.

Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, National Institutes of Health. A Professor of Medicine and health economist at Stanford University, Bhattacharya was one of three authors of the Great Barrington Declaration, an October 2020 letter that argued against lockdowns and promoted “herd immunity” to address the COVID-19 pandemic. Upon confirmation, Bhattacharya says he would “support reforming the U.S. public health and scientific institutions to ensure that they work for the American people.” The NIH plays a significant global role by funding over $40 billion in research annually, contributing to advancements in the understanding and treatment of diseases such as cancer, HIV/AIDS and infectious diseases, with global health implications. However, recent cuts to indirect research costs, including reductions in facilities and administrative rates, have impacted how research institutions manage their budgets, potentially affecting the scale and scope of over 1,000 global health research projects that the NIH supports to address challenges like infectious diseases, non-communicable diseases and emerging health threats. Top universities and research associations are foreshadowing that research cuts may threaten U.S. leadership in biomedical innovation. And some colleges and universities are pausing or reducing admissions to graduate programs amid uncertainty in federal funding.

Dr. Janette Nesheiwat, U.S. Surgeon General. A medical director for a New York City urgent care provider, Nesheiwat is said to envision her new role as leveraging her clinical practice to address public health challenges, including mental health, access to care and disease prevention. Throughout her career, Nesheiwat has been a strong advocate for vaccines and has been vocal about the detrimental effect of social media on the mental health of children. Historically, The U.S. Surgeon General plays an influential role globally by providing expert guidance on public health issues and advocating for health promotion, disease prevention and health equity. Through international collaborations with organizations like the World Health Organization (WHO) and the United Nations, the Surgeon General helps shape global health policies, supports efforts to address health crises and promotes best practices in areas such as tobacco control, mental health and epidemic response.

The newly established Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) Commission is an initiative formed in response to what is deemed America’s “chronic disease crisis” with rates among adults and children superseding those of comparable countries and total costs exceeding $3.7 trillion. With diabetes, obesity, mental health disorders and other chronic conditions as the focus, the administration seeks to enact federal policy that ensures federal research transparency; prioritizes research to understand why Americans are getting sicker; guarantees healthy and affordable food; and expands treatment and grows insurance benefits for lifestyle changes and prevention.

The initial mission of the Commission is to advise the President on how best to address childhood chronic disease, including studying contributing causes and providing the President with recommendations on policy and strategy to end it. Led by the HHS Secretary, the Commission also includes leaders from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institutes of Health and other members of the administration, though notably does not include the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

Despite widespread agreement that chronic disease must remain a national priority, the MAHA platform is not without critics. With the pharmaceutical industry in the crosshairs, some experts across various sectors believe that the language used in MAHA orders not only vilifies medication and implies that overmedicating has become the norm but also undercuts the expertise of healthcare practitioners and professionals in other fields charged with making the best decisions for their respective industries. Others argue that the initiative may reinforce distrust in medicine and its role in disease management, with potential ripple effects across global sectors that rely on public health systems. Additionally, the executive order does not address known chronic disease factors such as patterns of racial and ethnic bias, socioeconomic status, and other social determinants of health, which have wide-ranging implications both within the U.S. and internationally.

Numerous executive orders, policy changes and actions are intended to impact the healthcare system and may have intended, as well as unintended, consequences on health outcomes. These include the U.S. exit from the WHO, the reversal of Biden drug pricing policies, downstream effects of regulatory freezes, NIH funding cuts and extensive federal health workforce reductions. And more actions are expected.

Strategic Communications Considerations

As organizations aim to stay abreast of rapid changes and understand what they may mean, ensuring a thoughtful, strategic approach to communications and stakeholder engagement can provide a steadying force in what can feel like an uncertain and chaotic environment. Where there is common ground or interests align (e.g., chronic disease), there also may be opportunities for healthcare organizations to educate, engage and inform with subject matter expertise and perspectives.

Communications teams should collaborate with corporate and public affairs, government and investor relations, and other key functions to assess the organization’s unique principles and policies, priority stakeholder mix, opportunities, vulnerabilities and levels of risk tolerance. Legal counsel can help assess how executive or agency actions may apply to an organization, the likelihood of successful legal challenges and whether proposed responses are likely to comply with the order or other contractual, state or local legal considerations.

Know thyself. In times of volatility, it may be tempting to follow the crowd or react quickly, but authenticity is key. Sometimes, choosing to take no action can be a thoughtful and intentional response, especially when it aligns with an organization’s mission, values and commitment to transparency. Likewise, when the business risks of speaking out are outweighed by the risks of silence, taking a stand can be the right choice. Internal and external stakeholders—including employees, healthcare professionals, patients, community organizations, business partners, investors and policymakers—will evaluate an organization based on its consistent approach and integrity, regardless of whether it acts or waits. Staying true to your principles fosters trust, cultivates credibility and strengthens long-term relationships.

Engage thoughtfully. Because health is inherently personal (and therefore emotional), the desire or pressure to respond to perceived threats posed by administration policies may be heightened. Aim to be grounded in facts and information, as best as they are available. Organizations should establish clear communications processes that weigh the risks and benefits of public statements, assess potential stakeholder reactions and prepare both proactive and reactive messaging (and Q&As) with clear-eyed rationale and substantiation.

Organizations must consider when they are the right one to take the lead vs. joining forces with other voices, such as community groups, partners, industry or trade associations.

Monitor for misinformation. The spread of misinformation and disinformation remains a significant challenge for those striving to advance sensible healthcare policy. Healthcare organizations must be more vigilant than ever in combatting these efforts and promoting sound science. Combating misinformation and disinformation in the current context requires new methods—one can’t necessarily fight it with facts alone. It’s about understanding the emotional and psychological drivers behind misinformation and engaging with stakeholders in a way that builds trust and offers clarity. By addressing inaccuracies thoughtfully and authentically, organizations can maintain their credibility, reinforce their values and uphold their commitment to transparency and public trust.

Evaluate crisis plans. The healthcare industry is likely to face increased scrutiny from the administration, policymakers and various stakeholders on critical issues ranging from conflicts of interest in research and marketing practices to DEI, addressing health disparities and supporting LGBTQ+ populations. Organizations must proactively assess and strengthen their crisis communications plans to ensure they are prepared for potential challenges in this evolving landscape. This involves identifying areas of vulnerability—whether in governance, policy adherence, public perception or employee sentiment—and building strategic, adaptive responses. Additionally, the global implications of new policy initiatives must be proactively considered in any crisis or vulnerability risk assessment. As healthcare policies evolve internationally, their ripple effects may create unforeseen risks that organizations need to be prepared for, especially when it comes to cross-border operations or international partnerships. By staying ahead of these issues and aligning their actions with core values, companies can demonstrate leadership, protect their reputation and effectively navigate any emerging concerns. It’s important to leverage expert counsel to craft tailored strategies that ensure your organization can respond decisively and authentically when faced with challenges.

Stay nimble. Administration pronouncements and policies may be challenged, changed or rescinded. Craft communications strategies that are mindful of the rapidly changing environment. Messaging should acknowledge that situations may evolve and that the organization will continue to monitor and evaluate developments as they arise.

What Next? An Era of Uncertainty

There is still a great deal of uncertainty as to the impact of administration decisions and policy on science and healthcare, and many developments will unfold over the next few months, including confirmation hearings and legal rulings, that will lend greater clarity. As the Trump administration’s MAHA agenda and other health policies move forward, additional actions may impact programs and priorities across the federal landscape, including FDA, CMS, NIH and CDC, with follow-on effects for industry, providers, patients, payers, researchers and the public at large.

Organizations across all sectors should continue to monitor developments, industry responses and corresponding stakeholder sentiment and reactions to continually reassess and update communications strategies as situations warrant. As critical counselors to C-suite executives, communications professionals will need to assimilate new processes and protocols to provide real-time updates and counsel, in collaboration with cross-functional partners, to advise on messaging considerations as new information emerges and situations develop. In particular, communications strategies should account for the global implications of U.S. policy actions, especially as international stakeholders may have a significant interest in these policies. It is essential to proactively assess how U.S. policy shifts may affect global markets, partnerships and regulatory environments, and to adjust messaging accordingly. This includes preparing for the potential impact of U.S. healthcare policies on international operations, while clearly articulating the organization’s position in a way that resonates with both domestic and global audiences. Moreover, these global considerations extend beyond the health and life sciences sector; industries such as technology, finance and manufacturing must also evaluate how U.S. policy actions may influence global trade, supply chains and international regulatory frameworks. By staying agile and responsive, organizations can maintain credibility and ensure that their messaging remains aligned with both domestic values and global realities.