Connect with us

News

Can Trump’s latest pick for surgeon general make it through confirmation?

Published

on

Can Trump’s latest pick for surgeon general make it through confirmation?

Nicole Saphier, President Trump’s nominee for surgeon general.

Theo Wargo/Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Theo Wargo/Getty Images

President Trump has nominated Dr. Nicole Saphier, a radiologist and former Fox News Channel contributor, for the role of surgeon general. It’s his third pick for this position, often called “the nation’s doctor,” responsible for promoting health and wellness to the general public in the United States.

Saphier is expected to be more acceptable to Republican lawmakers, than Dr. Casey Means, Trump’s previous choice. His first pick, Dr. Janette Nesheiwat, was withdrawn following scrutiny over how she had represented her medical credentials.

Trump described Saphier, who directs breast imaging at Memorial Sloan Kettering Monmouth, as a “STAR physician” and an “INCREDIBLE COMMUNICATOR” in his April 30 nomination post on Truth Social.

Advertisement

The same day, Trump blamed Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., a physician, for having “stood in the way” of Means getting confirmed as surgeon general. He accused Cassidy of “intransigence and political games.”

Saphier will be facing scrutiny from the same committee members who were doubtful of Means.

Means told Politico that Sens. Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, also opposed her nomination, effectively tanking her confirmation.

All three Republican lawmakers serve on the influential Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee, which Cassidy chairs. The committee holds confirmation hearings for nominated health officials and determines whether to advance them to a full Senate vote.

In response, the Republican members of the Senate HELP Committee wrote, “It’s clear she did not have the votes,” in a post on X.

Advertisement

Does Saphier have a better chance than Means?

While a confirmation hearing has not been scheduled yet, Saphier can expect many questions about her qualifications, views on vaccines and other topics she’s publicly addressed.

David Mansdoerfer, former deputy assistant secretary of health at the Department of Health and Human Services in the first Trump administration, says she likely faces a warm reception from Republicans, saying she’s “extremely strong on some of the core base issues.”

“[She’s great on] the pro-life issue, on chronic disease and prevention. She speaks a lot to the MAHA influence, especially to the suburban moms,” he says, referring to the Make American Healthy Again movement, an interest group that Republicans are trying to win in the midterm elections.

In addition to being a practicing physician, Saphier is also a health influencer and former medical contributor to Fox News from 2018 to this week, a Fox News spokesperson confirmed. She currently sells herbal supplement drops that promote “focus” and “calm” and hosts a podcast called Wellness Unmasked on iHeartRadio. In 2020, she published a book titled Make America Healthy Again — years before the phrase coalesced into a movement led by current Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

Saphier is a clear contrast from Means in some key respects. She is an active licensed physician — which Means wasn’t — practicing at a top academic medical center. These credentials make her a “reasonable choice” for surgeon general, says Dr. Georges Benjamin, CEO of the American Public Health Association.

Advertisement

Benjamin had described Trump’s previous pick, Means, to NPR as “less qualified professionally than any other surgeon general in history.”

In February, Saphier addressed Means’ nomination on her podcast, saying the surgeon general’s main role is public health messaging, and for that they need to be “a trusted messenger.”

“They need the respect of not only …the American people that they are communicating to, but they also need the respect of the administration, which they are working together with,” she said, “And also the [respect of] medical professionals, the medical organizations.” In Saphier’s opinion at the time, that’s where Means was falling short.

Dr. Jerome Adams, who served as the 20th surgeon general in the first Trump administration, said in an interview with NPR’s Morning Edition that he expects Saphier to get the respect of the medical community, along with the public and the Administration.

But Saphier’s focus on individual care is just one piece of public health, Adams says. “She tends to see things through a diagnosis and treatment lens because that’s what cancer docs do. It’s clear when you look at the book she wrote that she does not think of things through a public health and societal lens.”

Advertisement

For instance, “she talks about personal responsibility a lot, but you can’t eat healthy if you are having your SNAP benefits cut or if the cost of groceries is going through the roof because of inflation. The broader societal context actually matters,” he says.

Still Adams wrote on X, “Overall, this is a solid pick. I believe she’ll be confirmed and that she has both the clinical background and the temperament to do a good job.”

Views on vaccines and other credentials

The Trump administration has been trying to pivot away from the focus on vaccines ahead of the midterm elections. Secretary Kennedy’s attempts to make sweeping changes to the vaccine schedule have polled poorly with voters, and been blocked by court challenges from leading U.S. health groups.

Still, the topic will likely be front and center in an upcoming confirmation hearing for the role of surgeon general.

Saphier’s views on the topic are not completely aligned with Kennedy. She criticized his attempts to link vaccines with autism in an op-ed last year in the Wall Street Journal. “When it comes to autism, we can’t afford to chase ghosts,” she wrote, advocating for more research into genetic and environmental causes.

Advertisement

But she disagrees with some public health recommendations on the childhood vaccine schedule. While vaccines “really can save lives,” Saphier said in a February 2025 Fox News Digital video, “I do think that the CDC and the American Academy of Pediatrics need to be less stringent on these schedules,” she said, specifically mentioning the hepatitis B and COVID-19 vaccines for children.

Based on what Saphier has said publicly, “she’s been opposed to vaccine mandates, but she’s not anti-vaccine,” says Benjamin from APHA.

At her confirmation hearing in February, former surgeon general pick Dr. Casey Means articulated a similar position, which served as a sticking point for some senators.

Role of surgeon general

Getting confirmed in this role is high stakes, says Dr. Richard Carmona, who served as the 17th surgeon general in the George W. Bush administration. Of all the competencies required for the role, political affiliation or experience as a television commentator are not high on his list.

The job is “to protect, promote and advance the health, safety and security of the nation” and to represent the U.S. government when disasters and public health emergencies strike in the U.S. and abroad, he says.

Advertisement

The surgeon general commands the U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned Corps, one of the eight uniformed services of the United States, with thousands of members that have earned their ranks in a career of service, Carmona says. The surgeon general’s rank is three-star vice admiral.

For this role, Carmona would prioritize experience in leadership and public health. The surgeon general should have “the credibility to sit at the table with foreign ministers and carry the message of the United States and work with our allies.”

As surgeon general, Carmona fielded questions from lawmakers and the media about a wide range of public health topics, from cancer to emergency preparedness for biological and nuclear hazards.

For someone being considered for the role, “I want to know that you have expertise in public health besides clinical medicine,” he says, “Have you dealt with vaccination issues? Have you dealt with clean water and sanitation? How about air pollution? … That’s what a surgeon general does.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

News

Supreme Court reinstates Republican-favored Alabama congressional districts

Published

on

Supreme Court reinstates Republican-favored Alabama congressional districts

The U.S. Supreme Court

Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images

The Supreme Court on Tuesday cleared the way for Alabama to use a congressional district map favored by Republicans.

The court, in an unsigned order, overturned a three-judge district court panel that found that the map is “tainted by intentional race-based discrimination.” The court’s three liberals publicly dissented.

The ruling means that Alabama’s 2026 midterm elections will feature six Republican-leaning districts and one Democratic-leaning one, as opposed to a map with only five safe Republican seats. Democrat Shomari Figures, who represents Alabama’s Second District, will likely lose his seat as a result of the high court’s ruling.

Advertisement

The story of Alabama’s congressional map is long and tortured. It began in 2021, when the state implemented a new map to account for population changes in the census. The map featured only one majority-black district out of seven, even though the state is more than one-quarter Black.

Voters immediately sued, claiming the map illegally diluted minority votes in violation of the Voting Rights Act and the Constitution. Lower court judges agreed, ruling that the state must draw a map with two districts where Black voters have a realistic chance of electing their candidate of choice. The Supreme Court more than once has ordered Alabama to draw a compliant map.

But the state has refused and instead continued to litigate the case. On Tuesday, that tactic paid off.

What changed? In April, the Supreme Court’s conservative supermajority all but gutted what remains of the Voting Rights Act, ruling that states cannot purposefully draw districts that are majority-minority.

Alabama then asked the high court to reinstate the state’s old map, under the theory that this new ruling meant that it was permissible to use a map with only one majority-Black district. In an unsigned, unexplained order in May, the high court essentially reversed its previous opinions, and allowed Alabama to use the old map for the upcoming midterm elections.

Advertisement

This set off a flurry of activity in Alabama. By the time the Supreme Court issued its May order, absentee balloting had already begun, using the court-drawn map. So Republican Governor Kay Ivey cancelled elections and scheduled a special primary for August for the affected congressional races.

The case, however, was not over.

In its ruling, the Supreme Court had ordered a lower court panel to continue evaluating Alabama’s map in light of its recent Voting Rights Act decision. And just 15 days after that order, the panel, composed of three Republican judges—two of them Trump appointees—concluded unanimously that even under the Supreme Court’s new standards, the plan for a single black district was “intentionally discriminatory.”

So, once again, Alabama returned to the Supreme Court, arguing that the map was partisan, not racially discriminatory. In short, that the Republican legislature simply drew the map to elect more Republicans. And that under the Supreme Court’s new interpretation of the Voting Rights Act, the GOP map should be allowed to stand.

The court’s conservative agreed, writing that the lower court “did not heed the presumption of legislative good faith.”

Advertisement

The court’s three liberals publicly dissented, castigating the conservative majority for failing to abide by its 2006 decision in the case of Purcell v. Gonzalez. That decision declared that courts should not change election rules too close to an election.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in her dissent, said the court “debases the democratic process” and “corrodes the rule of law by rewarding Alabama’s gamesmanship and outright defiance of court orders.”

Tuesday’s decision is the latest in a series of Supreme Court rulings that could well reshape the 2026 midterm elections, making it much harder for Democrats to prevail.

Continue Reading

News

Map: 3.7-Magnitude Earthquake Shakes the San Francisco Bay Area

Published

on

Map: 3.7-Magnitude Earthquake Shakes the San Francisco Bay Area

Advertisement

Note: Map shows the area with a shake intensity of 3 or greater, which U.S.G.S. defines as “weak,” though the earthquake may be felt outside the areas shown.  All times on the map are Pacific time. The New York Times

Advertisement

A minor, 3.7-magnitude earthquake struck in the San Francisco Bay Area on Tuesday, according to the United States Geological Survey.

The temblor happened at 9:44 a.m. Pacific time about 4 miles southeast of Cloverdale, Calif., data from the agency shows.

Advertisement

U.S.G.S. data earlier reported that the magnitude was 3.6.

As seismologists review available data, they may revise the earthquake’s reported magnitude. Additional information collected about the earthquake may also prompt U.S.G.S. scientists to update the shake-severity map.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Aftershocks detected

Subsequent quakes have been reported in the same area. Such temblors are typically aftershocks caused by minor adjustments along the portion of a fault that slipped at the time of the initial earthquake.

Advertisement

Quakes and aftershocks within 100 miles

Aftershocks can occur days, weeks or even years after the first earthquake. These events can be of equal or larger magnitude to the initial earthquake, and they can continue to affect already damaged locations.

Advertisement

When quakes and aftershocks occurred

 All times are Pacific time. The New York Times

Advertisement

Advertisement

Sources: United States Geological Survey (epicenter, aftershocks, shake intensity); LandScan via Oak Ridge National Laboratory (population density) | Notes: Shaking categories are based on the Modified Mercalli Intensity scale. When aftershock data is available, the corresponding maps and charts include earthquakes within 100 miles and seven days of the initial quake. All times above are Pacific time. Shake data is as of Tuesday, June 2 at 12:59 p.m. Eastern. Aftershocks data is as of Tuesday, June 2 at 1:59 p.m. Eastern.

Continue Reading

News

Promoting Advanced Artificial Intelligence Innovation and Security

Published

on

Promoting Advanced Artificial Intelligence Innovation and Security

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered:

Section 1.  Purpose.  The United States continues to lead the world in Artificial Intelligence (AI) because of the enormous talent and innovation of our AI industry, and because we refuse to stifle this innovation with overly burdensome regulation.  My Administration has unleashed tremendous technological growth and economic investment in AI by slashing the bureaucratic constraints that the prior administration placed on America’s AI developers and researchers, and by instead encouraging AI innovation and accelerating responsible AI adoption across government and industry. 

Advanced AI capabilities make our Nation stronger, but also introduce new national security considerations that require coordinated action across executive departments and agencies (agencies), and components.  As these capabilities evolve, my Administration will continue to work closely with industry to ensure that the best and most secure technology is deployed rapidly to confront any and all threats to our country.  We will continue to lead an America First cybersecurity effort that enhances both our national security and our global AI dominance.

It is the policy of the United States to promote AI innovation and security by working collaboratively with the private sector to modernize government and private sector information systems and harden them against external threats; to protect American ingenuity and intellectual property from exploitation and theft by adversaries; and to cultivate America’s advanced AI-enabled capabilities.

Sec. 2.  Upgrading American Systems for Advanced AI.  (a)  Within 30 days of the date of this order, the Committee on National Security Systems shall prioritize the cyber defense of National Security Systems, as defined in 44 U.S.C. 3552(b)(6)(A), by taking appropriate and expeditious action consistent with the purpose of this order.

Advertisement

(b)  Within 30 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of War shall prioritize the cyber defense of Department of War information systems by taking appropriate and expeditious action consistent with the purpose of this order.

(c)  Within 30 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Homeland Security, through the Director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), in consultation with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, and the National Cyber Director, shall release Binding Operational Directives and other guidance as appropriate to:

(i)    expedite and prioritize the cyber defense of civilian Federal Government information systems in order to protect our Nation’s vital functions;

(ii)   establish or expand Federal programs and cybersecurity services that enhance AI-enabled defensive tools; and

(iii)  facilitate access to cybersecurity tools and services including, where appropriate, covered frontier models for agencies, State and local authorities, and operators of critical infrastructure such as rural hospitals, community banks, and local utilities.

Advertisement

(d)  Within 30 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the National Cyber Director, the Secretary of War, through the Director of the National Security Agency (NSA), and the Secretary of Homeland Security, through the Director of CISA, shall form an AI cybersecurity clearinghouse, in voluntary collaboration with the AI industry and operators of critical infrastructure, that coordinates and deconflicts scanning for software vulnerabilities, discovers and validates such vulnerabilities, and coordinates and prioritizes remediation and distribution of vulnerability patches.

(e)  Within 30 days of the date of this order, the Director of OMB, in coordination with the National Cyber Director and the Director of CISA, shall determine whether any Federal grant programs have available and relevant funding that can be directed toward applicants developing advanced AI vulnerability detection.

(f)  Within 60 days of the date of this order, the Director of the Office of Personnel Management shall expand the United States Tech Force Information Cybersecurity Specialist hiring and placement pathways.

Sec. 3.  Secure Frontier Model Deployment.  Within 60 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of War, through the Director of NSA, and the Secretary of Homeland Security, through the Director of CISA, in consultation with the White House Chief of Staff, through the National Cyber Director, the Assistant to the President for Science and Technology (APST), and the Secretary of Commerce, through the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and in coordination with other agencies, as appropriate, shall:

(a)  develop and maintain a classified benchmarking process to assess the advanced cyber capabilities of AI models and determine the threshold at which an AI model should be designated a “covered frontier model” for the purposes of this order, sharing such assessments with AI developers and researchers as appropriate.  Such a determination shall be made by the Director of NSA, in consultation with the National Cyber Director, the APST, the Director of CISA, and other representatives of the Department of War, as appropriate.

Advertisement

(b)  design a voluntary framework with AI developers through which developers would be able to:

(i)    engage the Federal Government to determine whether model(s) under development meet the designation of “covered frontier model”;

(ii)   provide the Federal Government with access to covered frontier models, subject to appropriate confidentiality, cybersecurity, insider-risk, and intellectual-property protection, use, and nondisclosure requirements, for a period of up to 30 days before they plan to release such models to other trusted partners; and 

(iii)  collaborate with the Federal Government to select trusted partners that will have early access to covered frontier models to promote secure innovation and strengthen the cybersecurity of critical infrastructure.

(c)  Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize the creation of a mandatory governmental licensing, preclearance, or permitting requirement for the development, publication, release, or distribution of new AI models, including frontier models.

Advertisement

Sec. 4.  Protection Against Criminal Actors.  The Attorney General shall prioritize the enforcement of 18 U.S.C. 1028, 18 U.S.C. 1030, 18 U.S.C. 1343, and all other applicable Federal criminal laws against anyone who utilizes AI to illegally access or damage a computer without authorization, or who utilizes AI while engaged in such illegal access to further any other crime.  This includes breaching any public or private information technology system, or employing AI agents to unlawfully access data or information that is subsequently used for a criminal or unlawful purpose.

Sec. 5.  General Provisions.  (a)  Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i)   the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii)  the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b)  This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

Advertisement

(c)  This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

(d)  The costs for publication of this order shall be borne by the Department of War.

                             DONALD J. TRUMP

THE WHITE HOUSE,

    June 2, 2026.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending