Fired CDC Director Susan Monarez Speaks Out on Contentious Tenure under RFK, Jr.

When Susan Monarez took the lead in the American centers besieged for the control and prevention of diseases (CDC) at the end of July, she had her work cut for her. The public’s confidence in the agency had dropped considerably since the start of the COVVI-19 pandemic. And the American secretary for health, Robert F. Kennedy Jr, who oversees the CDC, had qualified the “corruption power” agency which was to be fundamentally rebuilt.

Less than a month after the start of Monarez’s mandate, US President Donald Trump dismissed her. She had lost the confidence of Kennedy, who only had a month earlier that he had “full confidence” in her ability to lead the agency and that she had “irreproachable scientific references”.

This conflict has spread to the public when everyone presented their version of events to American senators during separate audiences on Capitol Hill in Washington DC. Monarerez was dismissed, she said, for refusing to dismiss scientists from the agency or pre-approut vaccine recommendations without first considering the relevant scientific data. Kennedy testified that Monarez had told her that she was not trustworthy, so he had ousted her.

On the support of scientific journalism

If you appreciate this article, plan to support our award -winning journalism by subscription. By buying a subscription, you help to ensure the future of striking stories about discoveries and ideas that shape our world today.

Kennedy had also told Monarez that CDC employees “killed children and that they don’t care”, were “bought by the pharmaceutical industry” and “people forced to wear masks and a social distance as a dictatorship,” she said. These alleged comments occurred after a deadly shooting at the CDC headquarters in Atlanta, Georgia, shortly after she became director. The shooter, who targeted the campus to protest against COVVI-19 vaccines, killed police officer David Rose and broke some 150 windows.

In recent months, said Monarez, has included both “the highlights of my professional career” and the “worst absolute days of my life”. In an exclusive interview – her first since she became director of the CDC – she says Nature On the substantial decisions that cost him the work and the next stage for public health in a politicized world.

The director of the CDC is an “intrinsically political position, but that does not mean that he must be politically compromised”, explains Monarez, who is immunologist and microbiologist. “The CDC is far too important to give up.”

Before our call, you sent me a photo that seems to you to be a child with your father and your brothers and sisters sitting on a tractor with a barn in the background. What was it?

I grew up in rural America, in a family that did not have many resources – my father was a dairy producer. You live without expecting yourself to have the privileges and material goods that so many people have. We just knew you worked hard. You got up early and you treated people with kindness. We lived during or below the poverty line for a long time.

My parents, they are still alive, fortunately. But they have never been rich, and they do not have the advantages of immediate access to high quality health care, and I therefore still see them in difficulty today. When we talk to Washington DC, we must remember that there are millions and millions of Americans like my parents. We can’t leave them behind.

“I am optimistic. I always think that I can work harder so that other people can live better. ” —Susan Monarez, Former CDC director

Before the CDC, you worked at Advanced research project agency for health (ARPA-H), a government agency supporting high-risk and high yield biomedical research. How did this work informed your priorities for the CDC?

Much of what we built at Arpa-H was free from all bureaucratic obstacles. We allowed ourselves to ask: “What if we could change the world?” I wanted to bring this state of mind to CDC.

Barely eight days in your mandate, there was a fatal shoot at the headquarters of the CDC which terrified many members of your staff. Tell me about this experience.

The first week was probably one of the highlights of my entire professional career – to meet hundreds of CDC employees who wanted to make the difference and change the world. I got on the plane to come back [Washington] DC. And I finally got the wifi just before landing, and all these texts had started to pass: “Something happens here, we hear that there is a shooter.”

It was the most surreal and painful change between this extraordinary enthusiasm of “We are going to change the world with the most incredible people” to “has someone killed”?

[As I spoke to more CDC staff,] It seemed that most were ok, but very traumatized, because so many people were literally in the fire line.

My father – After losing the farm – became a police officer. It was so close and dear to my heart, the will of these police officers to sacrifice themselves. I couldn’t stop thinking that the pink officer losing his life. It could have been my father.

It was not an abstract and distant thing. These are real humans who were targeted with real bullets that were not intended for buildings – they were intended to cause damage.

What do you do with the characteristics of Kennedy of CDC employees, like its suggestion, they were “bought by the pharmaceutical industry”?

I did not meet a single human who embodied this rhetoric. They could earn much more money [in the private sector].

I am concerned about the context we place on our public health officials, who just want to help people. To contextualize it, another way is to make them an extraordinary bad service.

How are we going to encourage our best and most brilliant to contribute to public health, which is ungrateful? And what happens if we don’t do it?

You also testified that Kennedy had asked you to pre-show vaccination recommendations that had not yet been made. Was it the main collage point for you?

And dismiss scientists without reason. [At CDC, I] had been with altruistic, brilliant and incredible people who just wanted to contribute to well-being. We had already started to speak: “How to restore public confidence?” Because “trusting us” no longer works. So it was [against] This backdrop and then tell me that I had to dismiss these people without cause – as a human, I would not do that. And as a leader, I wouldn’t do that.

And be invited to commit [wholeheartedly] Without evidence – I would never do that, as a scientist. You must collect the right data.

[Emily Hilliard, a spokesperson for Kennedy’s agency, the Department of Health and Human Services, said in a statement to Nature last month that Monarez “acted maliciously to undermine the president’s agenda and was fired as a result”. Kennedy conceded, in remarks to Congress, that he had asked Monarez to fire CDC staff members.]

At least ten states say that they can no longer trust the CDC and have formed their own alliances, one on the west coast and one in the northeast. What do you do with these efforts?

These states worry about people who live in their communities. They care if they can help prevent public health damage. I understand their concerns. This is a reflection of [how much some people can trust] What comes from the federal government.

Is it not in some respects by playing directly in what this administration pushes – a dismantling of the federal government in favor of the rights of the States? Is it compatible with the fundamental principles of public health?

Public health does not respect the limits of states. We have to find a way to work together. I will come back to my own education. The rural community where I grew up could easily be left [if access to high-quality healthcare is available in one state but not another] And we don’t want that.

Kennedy has long been open to his opinions on vaccines and his intention to empty the CDC. What interested you to direct the agency?

I am optimistic. I always think that I can work harder so that other people can live better.

I have been in and around government for 18 years – each administration of [Republican George W.] Bush so far. I have always been in a position where I was able to make contributions. We always walk regularly to a better world.

I am less naive now than me.

What makes you say that?

I will always remain optimistic. This is how I live. But whether or not I want to return to the federal government – I don’t know if I can. I know there is a greatness in health innovation in the United States and in the world. I saw it. And I just don’t want to be put in a position where we do not adopt this – where we hold back, and we do not have our eyes on a future horizon that allows us to live better.

The director of the CDC is appointed policy. Does your experience show that the influence of politics in the role of the director is a fury conclusion?

It is an intrinsically political position, but that does not mean that it must be politically compromised.

I hope [scientific leaders] Include yourself with professionalism, transparency and the highest level of integrity, knowing that when you are in a position of authority, you have the possibility of influencing millions of lives. And that we all who have already had the privilege to be in this position must be humble, and we must take our work very seriously.

The CDC is far too important to abandon.

This article is reproduced with permission and was first publication October 2, 2025.