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 Janette Nesheiwat, was withdrawn following scrutiny over how she had represented her medical credentials.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.

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.

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.

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.”

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.

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.

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.”

A federal appeals court has restricted access to one of the most common means of abortion in the U.S. by blocking the mailing of mifepristone. A panel of the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is requiring that the abortion pill be distributed only in-person at clinics. Since the Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade and allowed enforcement of abortion bans, prescriptions by mail has become a major way that abortions are provided — including to states where bans are in place. The decision sets up a likely appeal to the Supreme Court.

A federal appeals court has restricted access to one of the most common means of abortion in the U.S. by blocking mailing of prescriptions of mifepristone.

A panel of the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is requiring that the abortion pill be distributed only in person at clinics.

“Every abortion facilitated by FDA’s action cancels Louisiana’s ban on medical abortions and undermines its policy that ‘every unborn child is human being from the moment of conception and is, therefore, a legal person,’” the ruling states.

Judges have long deferred to the Food and Drug Administration’s judgments on the safety and appropriate regulation of drugs.

FDA officials under President Donald Trump have repeatedly stated the agency is conducting a new review of mifepristone’s safety, at the direction of the president.

The judges noted in their ruling that FDA “could not say when that review might be complete and admitted it was still collecting data.”

In a court filing, Louisiana’s attorney general and a woman who says she was coerced into taking abortion pills requested that the FDA rules be rolled back to when the pills were allowed to be prescribed and dispensed only in person.

A Louisiana-based federal judge last month ruled that those allowances undermined the state’s abortion ban but stopped short of undoing the regulations immediately.

Since the Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade and allowed enforcement of abortion bans, prescriptions by mail have become a major way that abortions are provided — including to states where bans are in place.

“This is going to affect patients’ access to abortion and miscarriage care in every state in the nation,” said Julia Kaye, an ACLU lawyer. “When telemedicine is restricted, rural communities, people with low incomes, people with disabilities, survivors of intimate partner violence and communities of color suffer the most.”

Mifepristone was approved in 2000 as a safe and effective way to end early pregnancies. It is typically used in combination with a second drug, misoprostol.

Because of rare cases of excessive bleeding, the FDA initially imposed strict limits on who could prescribe and distribute the pill — only specially certified physicians and only after an in-person appointment where the person would receive the pill.

Both those requirements were dropped during the COVID-19 years. At the time, FDA officials under President Joe Biden said that after more than 20 years of monitoring mifepristone use, and reviewing dozens of studies involving thousands of women, it was clear that women could safely use the pill without direct supervision.

Friday’s ruling sets up a likely appeal to the Supreme Court.

The conservative-majority high court overturned abortion as a nationwide right in 2022 but unanimously preserved access to mifepristone two years later.

That 2024 decision sidestepped the core issues, however, by ruling that the anti-abortion doctors behind the case didn’t have legal standing to sue.