NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya Appointed Acting CDC Head in Unprecedented Move
In a significant consolidation of power within US health agencies, Jay Bhattacharya, the current director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), has been named acting director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). This appointment, announced on Wednesday, marks the fourth leadership change at the CDC within a single year, raising concerns about the direction of the embattled agency.
Experts Warn of RFK Jr's Influence on Vaccine Policies
Bhattacharya, a close ally of Robert F Kennedy Jr, the Secretary of the US Department of Health and Human Services and a longtime vaccine critic, is expected to advance Kennedy's agenda. Observers fear that his dual role could lead to further changes in the vaccine schedule, potentially undermining public health initiatives.
"It seems the one qualification for this job is rubber-stamping RFK Jr's agenda. He has already proven himself very capable of doing so," said Mallory Harris, an infectious disease researcher at the University of Maryland who has closely followed Bhattacharya's public statements.
Dual Leadership and Operational Neglect
Bhattacharya will continue serving as NIH director while taking on the acting CDC director position, a move that has sparked criticism about his ability to manage two large agencies effectively. Staff at both agencies report that he has been largely hands-off in daily operations, delegating responsibilities to deputies.
"He won't actually run the CDC. Just as he doesn't actually run NIH," said Jenna Norton, an NIH program officer speaking in her personal capacity. Jeremy Berg, former director of the National Institute of General Medical Sciences, echoed this sentiment, noting, "Now, rather than largely ignoring the actual operations of one agency, he can largely ignore the actual operations of two."
Controversial Background and Policy Positions
Bhattacharya gained prominence during the COVID-19 pandemic for opposing preventive measures and criticizing health officials like Anthony Fauci and Francis Collins. He has argued that scientific funders should not be involved in pandemic policy, calling it a conflict of interest.
Despite this stance, Harris pointed out the irony: "Since becoming NIH director he has been unusually involved in setting vaccine recommendations already and is now further consolidating his own power by taking on these roles simultaneously."
Staff Concerns and Agency Impact
Under Bhattacharya's leadership, the NIH has seen dramatic cuts to research and staff, while the CDC has similarly slashed grants to states and enacted massive layoffs. Berg, who initially tried to offer guidance to Bhattacharya, expressed disappointment: "I moved from thinking: 'I need to help this poor guy because he's got a huge amount on his plate,' to: 'I don't think he's interested in knowing anything.'"
Berg added, "I think he's safely locked up the position of worst NIH director in history. The agency has lost people and is barely functioning."
Legal and Political Context
The CDC director position became Senate-confirmable under a 2023 law, but Bhattacharya's appointment is temporary. He can serve as acting director for up to 210 days since the last confirmed director, Susan Monarez, was fired. Monarez claimed she was pressured by Kennedy to "rubber-stamp" vaccine decisions.
Dorit Reiss, a professor of law at University of California Law San Francisco, noted, "They needed someone confirmed by the Senate who won't interfere." Bhattacharya was confirmed by the Senate in March 2025 to lead the NIH, making him eligible for the acting CDC role.
Future Implications and Ongoing Criticism
Experts are concerned that Bhattacharya's alignment with Kennedy's agenda will lead to new restrictions on vaccinations. Berg expects him to continue "relitigating the CDC's role in the Covid response" and criticizing former officials like Rochelle Walensky, whom he accused of "politicized science."
Bhattacharya's focus remains on perceived failures of the pandemic response, with Berg stating, "He's absolutely obsessed with Covid and the pandemic response." As he takes on this dual role, the future of US health policy hangs in the balance, with staff and observers wary of his propagandist approach and lack of operational engagement.
