View previous stories
	Gaza: Top independent rights probe alleges Israel committed genocide by UN News, OHCHR, agencies   Sep. 2025   Senior independent rights investigators appointed by the United Nations Human Rights Council alleged on Tuesday that Israel’s actions in Gaza constitute genocide, a charge flatly rejected by Israeli Government officials.   In a new report published against the backdrop of intensifying Israeli military operations in Gaza City, the UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and Israel, urged Israel and all countries to fulfil their obligations under international law “to end the genocide” and punish those responsible.   “The Commission finds that Israel is responsible for the commission of genocide in Gaza,” said Navi Pillay, Chair of the Commission. “It is clear that there is an intent to destroy the Palestinians in Gaza through acts that meet the criteria set forth in the Genocide Convention.”   Israel's Ambassador to the UN in Geneva, Danny Meron, dismissed the Commission's "cherry-picked" findings saying the report sought to demonize the state of Israel. "The report falsely accuses Israel of genocidal intent, an allegation it cannot substantiate."   At a press conference in Geneva, the Commission of Inquiry's members Ms. Pillay and Chris Sidoti - who are appointed by the United Nations Human Rights Council’s 47 Member States - explained that their investigations into the war in Gaza beginning with Hamas-led terror attacks in Israel on 7 October 2023 had led to the conclusion that Israeli authorities and security forces “committed four of the five genocidal acts defined by the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide”.   These acts are: killing, causing serious bodily or mental harm, deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about the destruction of the Palestinians, and imposing measures intended to prevent births.   Ms. Pillay maintained that responsibility for the atrocity crimes “lies with Israeli authorities at the highest echelons”, amid “explicit statements” denigrating Palestinians by Israeli civilian and military authorities.   The Commission also analysed conduct of Israeli authorities and the Israeli security forces in Gaza, “including imposing starvation and inhumane conditions of life for Palestinians in Gaza… genocidal intent was the only reasonable inference that could be concluded from the nature of their operations”, the panel said.   The Commission’s assertion follows its review of Israeli military operations in Gaza, “including killing and seriously harming unprecedented numbers of Palestinians” and the imposition of a “total siege, including blocking humanitarian aid leading to starvation”, it said.   According to the UN aid coordination wing, OCHA, nearly one million people remain in Gaza City, famine has been confirmed there, and residents face daily bombardment and “compromised access to means of survival after the Israeli military placed the entire city under a displacement order”.   For its latest report, the panel also examined what it called the “systematic destruction” of healthcare and education in Gaza and “systematic” acts of sexual and gender-based violence against Palestinians.   In addition, the Commission of Inquiry reviewed Israel’s “disregarding of the orders of the International Court of Justice, which issued an order in March 2024 that Israel should take ‘all necessary and effective measures to ensure… the unhindered provision at scale by all concerned of urgently needed basic services and humanitarian assistance to Palestinians throughout Gaza’”.   “The international community cannot stay silent when clear signs and evidence of genocide emerge, the absence of action to stop it amounts to complicity,” she added. “All States are under a legal obligation to use all means that are reasonably available to them to stop the genocide in Gaza.”   http://news.un.org/en/story/2025/09/1165856 http://news.un.org/en/tags/gaza http://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/09/israel-has-committed-genocide-gaza-strip-un-commission-finds http://edition.cnn.com/2025/09/16/middleeast/israel-gaza-genocide-un-commission-report-intl http://www.sanders.senate.gov/op-eds/it-is-genocide http://www.npr.org/2025/09/16/nx-s1-5543246/israel-is-committing-genocide-in-gaza-a-un-inquiry-says http://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c8641wv0n4go http://www.abc.net.au/listen/programs/latenightlive/chris-sidoti-gaza-israel-genocide-un-report/105781524 http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2825%2902112-9/fulltext http://www.haaretz.com/deepdive/gazahumanitariancrisis   Gaza: Leaders of major aid groups call on world leaders to intervene following UN genocide conclusion   The leaders of over 20 major aid agencies working in Gaza are calling on world leaders to urgently intervene after a UN commission concluded, for the first time, that genocide is being committed. The statement is below:   As world leaders convene next week at the United Nations, we are calling on all member states to act in accordance with the mandate the UN was charged with 80 years ago.   What we are witnessing in Gaza is not only an unprecedented humanitarian catastrophe, but what the UN Commission of Inquiry has now concluded is a genocide. With this finding, the Commission joins a growing number of human rights organisations and leaders globally, and within Israel.   The inhumanity of the situation in Gaza is unconscionable. As humanitarian leaders, we have borne direct witness to the horrifying deaths and suffering of the people of Gaza. Our warnings have gone unheeded and thousands more lives are still at stake.   Now, as the Israeli government has ordered the mass displacement of Gaza City – home to nearly one million people – we are on the precipice of an even deadlier period in Gaza’s story if action is not taken. Gaza has been deliberately made uninhabitable.   Some 65,000 Palestinians have now been killed, including more than 20,000 children, and 164,000 injured. Thousands more are missing, buried under the rubble that has replaced Gaza’s once lively streets.   Nine out of 10 people in Gaza’s 2.1 million population have been forcibly displaced — most of them multiple times — into increasingly shrinking pockets of land that cannot sustain human life.   More than half a million people are starving. Famine has been declared and is spreading. The cumulative impact of hunger and physical deprivation means people are dying every day.   Throughout Gaza, entire cities have been razed to the ground, along with their life-sustaining public infrastructure, such as hospitals and water treatment plants. Agricultural land has been systemically destroyed.   If the facts and numbers aren’t enough, we have harrowing story upon harrowing story.   Since the Israeli military tightened its siege six months ago, blocking food, fuel, and medicine, we witnessed children and families waste away from starvation as famine took hold. Our colleagues too have been impacted.   Many of us have been into Gaza. We have met countless Palestinians who have lost limbs as a result of Israel’s bombardment. We have personally met children so traumatized by daily airstrikes that they cannot sleep. Some cannot speak. Others have told us they want to die to join their parents in heaven.   We have met families who eat animal food to survive and boil leaves as a meal for their children.   Yet world leaders fail to act. Facts are ignored. Testimony is cast aside. And more people are killed as a direct consequence.   Our organisations, together with Palestinian civil society groups, the UN, and Israeli human rights organisations, can only do so much. We have tirelessly tried to defend the rights of the people of Gaza and sustain humanitarian assistance, but we are being obstructed every step of the way.   We have been denied access, and the militarization of the aid system has proved deadly. Thousands of people have been shot at while trying to reach the handful of sites where food is distributed under armed guard.   Governments must act to prevent the evisceration of life in the Gaza Strip, and to end the violence and occupation. All parties must disavow violence against civilians, adhere to international humanitarian law and pursue peace.   States must use every available political, economic, and legal tool at their disposal to intervene. Rhetoric and half measures are not enough. This moment demands decisive action.   The UN enshrined international law as the cornerstone of global peace and security. If Member States continue to treat these legal obligations as optional, they are not only complicit but are setting a dangerous precedent for the future. History will undoubtedly judge this moment as a test of humanity. And we are failing. Failing the people of Gaza, failing the hostages, and failing our own collective moral imperative.   * Action for Humanity, ActionAid, American Friends Service Committee, American Near East Refugee Aid, CARE, DanChurchAid, Danish Refugee Council, Handicap International - Humanity & Inclusion, International Council of Voluntary Agencies, Islamic Relief, Médecins du Monde, Médecins Sans Frontières, MedGlobal, Mennonite Central Committee, Norwegian Refugee Council, Oxfam, People in Need, Save the Children, Terre des hommes, War Child International   http://reliefweb.int/report/occupied-palestinian-territory/gaza-leaders-major-aid-groups-call-world-leaders-intervene-following-un-genocide-conclusion http://reliefweb.int/country/pse http://www.savethechildren.net/news/gaza-failure-un-security-council-pass-ceasefire-resolution-abdication-legal-and-moral http://www.ipcinfo.org/ipcinfo-website/countries-in-focus-archive/issue-134/en/ http://webtv.un.org/en/asset/k1o/k1ogmhm1vv Visit the related web page
	Stand up for science and the truth by WWF, LSE Grantham Research Institute, agencies   3 Oct. 2025   Banking on Climate Breakdown. The Banking industry’s net zero alliance shuts down. (Guardian News)   The global banking industry’s net zero target-setting group has announced it will shut down immediately, amid faltering climate commitments around the world.   The Net Zero Banking Alliance (NZBA), which was rocked by a wave of departures after Donald Trump’s re-election, said its remaining members had “voted to transition from a member-based alliance and to establish its guidance as a framework”.   “As a result of this decision, NZBA will cease operations immediately,” a spokesperson said.   Jeanne Martin, co-director of corporate engagement at the responsible investment group ShareAction, described it as “bitterly disappointing”.   “Senior bankers need to be far more courageous in this decisive moment for all our futures and must use their influence to push up standards for accountability on climate if we are to stand any chance of making the clean energy transition happen.”   Lucie Pinson, the director of Reclaim Finance, said she “won’t mourn” the demise of the NZBA. “Its purpose was never to take real action, but to create the illusion of measures in order to ward off the risk of regulation. At least its demise brings clarity: the institutions genuinely committed to containing global warming will continue to act. But the massive reallocation of financial flows toward solutions cannot happen without intervention from policymakers and regulators. Their action is essential to limit climate change and the systemic risks it entails. For both, the priority remains ending the financing of fossil fuel expansion.”   On paper, the NZBA, which was convened by the UN Environment Programme finance initiative but led by banks, encouraged members to slash the carbon footprint of their investments and help drive the transition to net zero emissions by 2050.   The group counted nearly 150 members at its peak but began losing members late last year, when Donald Trump was re-elected on promises to deregulate the energy sector, dismantle environmental rules and “drill, baby, drill”.   Six major US banks – JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, Bank of America, Morgan Stanley, Wells Fargo and Goldman Sachs – quit before Trump’s inauguration, in moves analysts said were an attempt to head off “anti-woke” attacks from rightwing US politicians.   They were followed by European and Japanese lenders. In July, HSBC became the first British bank to quit the alliance, followed weeks later by Barclays. HSBC had already delayed key parts of its climate goals by 20 years and watered down environmental targets.   http://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/oct/03/banking-industry-net-zero-alliance-shuts-down-climate-nzba http://www.citizen.org/news/banking-agencies-withdraw-climate-risk-principles-leaving-banks-vulnerable-to-climate-risk-exposure/ http://news.mongabay.com/2025/10/nations-delay-vote-on-shipping-decarbonization-rules-after-fierce-us-resistance/ http://climateandhealthalliance.org/press-releases/cross-cutting-report-reveals-devastating-global-health-impacts-of-fossil-fuels-thru-production-life-cycle-across-human-lifespan   http://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/187/187-20250723-pre-01-00-en.pdf http://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/09/development-cannot-be-achieved-dying-planet-un-committee-issues-new-guidance http://www.pik-potsdam.de/en/news/latest-news/seven-of-nine-planetary-boundaries-now-breached-2013-ocean-acidification-joins-the-danger-zone http://www.nationalacademies.org/news/2025/09/national-academies-publish-new-report-reviewing-evidence-for-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-u-s-climate-health-and-welfare http://insideclimatenews.org/news/11102025/epas-comeback-a-sham-authoritarian-power-grab   Sep. 2025   Financial institutions must find the courage to continue delivering on net zero, by Aaron Vermeulen & Elisa Vacherand - WWF Global Finance Practice   As the impacts of climate breakdown intensify, disrupting value chains and economies, devastating communities, and undermining resilience, financial institutions appear to be hesitating. Instead of accelerating climate action, banks and asset managers are backing away from net zero commitments and related industry alliances are wobbling.   While the political and regulatory context in which finance operates has radically changed, the science of climate change has not. Financial institutions everywhere have a critical role to play in keeping global warming within 1.5°C as well as enhancing nature-based solutions to climate change. And in navigating today’s geopolitical and regulatory complexity, it’s vital they retain ambition and double down on financing the net-zero transition, even if they dare not speak its name.   Of course, the retreat from net zero is not happening in a vacuum. Questions about whether sustainable finance is compatible with fiduciary duty and competitiveness have been politicised. In response, some leading banks and investors are reining in ambition and exiting net zero alliances, forcing them to forego target-driven membership and restructure as commitment-free frameworks. Even where progress is real, institutions are hesitant to talk about it.   In January, the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero (GFANZ) announced a new focus on ‘addressing barriers to mobilising capital’, no longer requiring its members to set and deliver on science-based net zero targets. Since then, the Net-Zero Banking Alliance (NZBA) has haemorrhaged members, while those remaining are now voting on becoming a framework; the Net Zero Asset Managers initiative (NZAM) is undergoing a full review; and the Net Zero Asset Owner Alliance (NZAOA) has also been rattled. Even in the face of political pressure, these developments are unfortunate and risky for organisations created to help deliver the transition.   For financial institutions, shying away from climate action exposes their clients’ capital and risks their own credibility. The climate crisis and related risks, whether physical or transitional, aren’t going away any time soon.   And the claim that taking climate action goes against fiduciary duty is debatable. In July, the International Court of Justice ruled that states have binding obligations to prevent climate harm, strengthening the case that financial institutions too must treat climate risk as core to fiduciary responsibility.   Financial institutions must hold the line. Even if political realities limit communication around net zero, they must maintain ambition, and continue to strengthen client engagement and transition planning and investment. There are plenty of frameworks and approaches at hand to help them assess and mitigate climate- and nature related risks, including the CDP-WWF Temperature Scoring Methodology and the Science-Based Targets Initiative.   Net zero alliances under attack must adapt but not fold, and continue to promote best practice and enable their members to set science-based targets in ways that meet their fiduciary duties and net zero objectives, and that scale investment in the business opportunities of transition.   And central banks, financial regulators and supervisors can no longer sit on the fence. They need to make it explicit that climate change and nature loss are material financial risks, and treat them accordingly. Stress testing, disclosure, and capital requirements must reflect reality.   Securing a net zero, nature-positive global economy also demands that governments, regulators and policymakers bolster rather than hinder the ability of financial institutions to deliver transition. Complementing voluntary action with enabling policy works. In Europe, the EU Taxonomy has already shaped €800 billion in climate mitigation investments, and in Asia and leading emerging markets, net-zero policies have tripled across G20 countries since 2020.   The business case is clear. Renewables, for example, are cheaper than fossil fuels. Since 2023, nearly all new solar photovoltaics and onshore wind projects have undercut new coal and gas, and three-quarters were even cheaper than existing fossil plants.   With crude oil prices expected to remain low for the next few years, Antonio Guterres was right when he declared in July that ‘the fossil fuel age is flailing and failing. We are in the dawn of a new energy era.’ The world is already investing nearly twice as much in clean energy as in fossil fuels, and existing clean tech has the potential to displace 75% of today’s fossil fuel demand. Investors who continue to cling to oil and gas are in denial.   There are some signs that the message is hitting home. With pressure mounting on pension funds to take more account of climate risks, Dutch pension fund PFZW is the latest to act, recently withdrawing from BlackRock, Legal & General and AQR Capital Management to match a shift in its investment strategy toward greater sustainability.   Financial institutions already have models for interest rate swings, credit cycles, and geopolitical shock. Climate change is a systemic risk that encompasses all of these and more. Engaging with it is good risk management. Ignoring it is negligent.   The financial sector stands at a crossroads. It can bow to political pressure, dismantle the fragile progress of recent years, and pretend that fossil fuels are still a safe bet. Or it can double down, align with science, and make finance part of the solution.   Political headwinds do not change commercial realities. Major financial institutions know that aligning strategies with a net zero and nature positive agenda will unlock huge opportunities and contribute to a future in which people and nature thrive. This is a time for courage rather than retreat.   http://wwf.panda.org/discover/our_focus/finance/?14763466/Financial-institutions-must-continue-delivering-net-zero http://news.un.org/en/story/2025/07/1165475 http://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/187/187-20250723-pre-01-00-en.pdf http://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/07/turk-hails-landmark-icj-ruling-affirming-states-human-rights-obligations http://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/news/institute-responds-to-international-court-of-justice-advisory-opinion/ http://www.ciel.org/news/icj-climate-opinion-ends-fossil-fuel-impunity/ http://www.pik-potsdam.de/en/news/latest-news/pace-of-warming-has-doubled-since-1980s http://www.savethechildren.net/news/climate-change-icj-ruling-landmark-win-children http://www.rightsoffuturegenerations.org/the-principles   Aug. 2025   As the climate crisis worsens, it is concerning to see powerful governments censor scientific data, by Pallavi Sethi - Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment   At a time when the global climate crisis is escalating, some governments are choosing to distort and conceal the evidence of its impacts.   In the seven months since taking office, the Trump administration has been steadily erasing the evidence of climate science. This is no longer just a matter of denying science or delaying action, it is about controlling who gets to create, share, and access knowledge.   It is an epistemic assault, one that we have seen happen before. In Canada, nearly a decade ago, Stephen Harper’s government silenced climate scientists and destroyed data. In 2012, the Venezuelan government removed environmental statistics from public view.   And in Brazil in 2020, the Bolsonaro administration tried to discredit data related to deforestation and fired the officer behind it. These cases point to a disturbing pattern of governments trying to conceal facts, a phenomenon becoming increasingly blatant in the US.   Even as climate disasters become more frequent and extreme, such as the recent Texas floods that claimed 135 lives, the Trump administration is gutting the very systems needed to understand and respond to the crisis.   Proposed budget cuts to federal agencies, like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), are undermining their ability to monitor climate risks, develop solutions and protect communities.   However, there is a growing movement where scientists and grassroot organisations have come together to protect crucial climate data.   The Trump administration is aggressively rolling back climate action, including erasing scientific data, slashing research funding, and removing terms like “climate change” from federal websites.   In the proposed fiscal budget for 2026, the administration plans to cut NOAA’s budget by 27 per cent, which would end its Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR). This could impact the country’s ability to accurately predict extreme weather.   In the latest blow, the administration has proposed to repeal the EPA’s 2009 endangerment finding, the legal basis for nearly all federal climate regulations. The scientific finding, under the Clean Air Act, based on extensive evidence, concluded that greenhouse gases threaten public health and safety.   The repeal would strip the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases from new vehicles, power plants, and other sources of pollution. If the rollback is carried out, it will be one of the most damaging environmental actions by a US government.   Another concerning target of the Trump administration has been the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii, the longest-running station for measuring atmospheric carbon dioxide. The facility, which was launched in 1956, produced the Keeling Curve (a daily record of global atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration), and brought global attention to the rapid increase in greenhouse gas levels.   Now, President Trump wants to shut this laboratory despite expert warnings that this move would impact the understanding of “how climate is changing, at what pace, and where.”   Beyond gutting regulations, the administration is also erasing scientific evidence.   It has removed the online website that hosted the National Climate Assessment (NCA) reports, published every four years, and dismissed hundreds of staff working on the next edition. Without the NCA reports, cities could struggle to prepare for climate disasters.   These actions represent a deliberate effort not just to discredit climate evidence but to suppress it entirely. It is also a rejection of evidence-based governance where both the scientific findings and the institutions responsible for producing them are systematically undermined.   Institutional censorship not only undermines scientific integrity but also erodes public trust in democratic institutions. This type of censorship can also affect international cooperation and slow progress, especially since the US is the second largest carbon emitter.   The suppression of climate data by the US government has global implications. The international scientific community depends on the US for critical data which helps in responding to climate disasters.   Agencies such as NOAA, EPA and NASA have long been providers of free and publicly accessible information to experts all over the world. Since agencies like NOAA monitor vast areas, including entire oceans, researchers in the Global South, for instance, rely heavily on them to monitor and respond to environmental challenges.   The Centre for Sustainable Development at the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) in India uses NOAA’s climate datasets to track weather and ocean conditions in the Indian Ocean. The Institute uses this information to advise government agencies on how to best prepare and recover from natural disasters. Similarly, scientists at Singapore’s Earth Observatory rely on NOAA data to model and predict rising sea levels, which is critical for strengthening Singapore’s coastal resilience.   Disruptions to such data also risk deepening existing scientific and geopolitical inequalities. Many scientific institutions in wealthier nations may have the ability to develop robust data sources. However, many in the Global South lack the technical infrastructure and financial resources to do the same.   Therefore, limiting access to US climate datasets can especially impact the ability of vulnerable nations to address climate change effectively. In addition, when a powerful country like the US withdraws from climate leadership, it risks sending a dangerous message to other nations that climate inaction is acceptable. This can embolden governments to scale back on their own efforts and undermine collective progress.   Despite efforts to suppress climate data, scientists and grassroots organisations are working together to protect this vital information. For instance, the Environmental Data and Governance Initiative archives data that affects the communities most at risk from Trump’s proposed policies. The Max Planck Society for the Advancement of Science in Germany, the European Space Agency, and the National Centre for Scientific Research in France have archived data from US agencies like NOAA and EPA.   As the climate crisis worsens, it is concerning to see powerful governments censor scientific data. But the growing resistance from scientists, civil society and academic institutions proves that knowledge cannot be easily erased. It is also an important reminder that governments cannot be the sole custodians of scientific knowledge. Instead, we should view science as a shared and transnational public resource that we must protect and defend.   http://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/news/inside-trumps-campaign-to-censor-climate-science/ http://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-02868-1 http://www.nationalacademies.org/news/2025/09/national-academies-publish-new-report-reviewing-evidence-for-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-u-s-climate-health-and-welfare http://climateandhealthalliance.org/press-releases/cross-cutting-report-reveals-devastating-global-health-impacts-of-fossil-fuels-thru-production-life-cycle-across-human-lifespan/ http://climate.law.columbia.edu/Silencing-Science-Tracker http://clxtoolkit.com/publications/report-loss-and-damage-litigation-against-carbon-majors/ http://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/10/un-expert-says-strengthening-impact-assessments-essential-facing-planetary   Sep. 2025   Medical groups must stand up for science and the truth - former directors of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (NYT)   We have each had the honor and privilege of serving as director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, either in a permanent or an acting capacity, dating back to 1977. Collectively, we spent more than 100 years working at the C.D.C., one of the world’s pre-eminent public health agencies. We served under multiple Republican and Democratic administrations — every president from Jimmy Carter to Donald Trump — alongside thousands of dedicated staff members who shared our commitment to saving lives and improving health.   What the health and human services secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., has done to the C.D.C. and to our nation’s public health system over the past several months — culminating in his decision to fire Dr. Susan Monarez as C.D.C. director days ago — is unlike anything we had ever seen at the agency and unlike anything our country had ever experienced.   Mr. Kennedy has fired thousands of federal health workers and severely weakened programs designed to protect Americans from cancer, heart attacks, strokes, lead poisoning, injury, violence and more. Amid the largest measles outbreak in the United States in a generation, he’s focused on unproven treatments while downplaying vaccines.   He canceled investments in promising medical research that will leave us ill prepared for future health emergencies. He replaced experts on federal health advisory committees with unqualified individuals who share his dangerous and unscientific views.   He announced the end of U.S. support for global vaccination programs that protect millions of children and keep Americans safe, citing flawed research and making inaccurate statements. And he championed federal legislation that will cause millions of people with health insurance through Medicaid to lose their coverage. Firing Dr. Monarez — which led to the resignations of top C.D.C. officials — adds considerable fuel to this raging fire.   We are worried about the wide-ranging impact that all these decisions will have on America's health security. Residents of rural communities and people with disabilities will have even more limited access to health care. Families with low incomes who rely most heavily on community health clinics and support from state and local health departments will have fewer resources available to them. Children risk losing access to lifesaving vaccines because of the cost. This is unacceptable, and it should alarm every American, regardless of political leanings.   The C.D.C. is an agency under Health and Human Services. During our C.D.C. tenures, we did not always agree with our leaders, but they never gave us reason to doubt that they would rely on data-driven insights for our protection or that they would support public health workers. We need only look to Operation Warp Speed during the first Trump administration — which produced highly effective and safe vaccines that saved millions of lives during the Covid-19 pandemic — as a shining example of what Health and Human Services can accomplish when health and science are at the forefront of its mission.   The current department leadership, however, operates under a very different set of rules. When Mr. Kennedy administered the oath of office to Dr. Monarez on July 31, he called her “a public health expert with unimpeachable scientific credentials.” But when she refused weeks later to rubber-stamp his dangerous and unfounded vaccine recommendations or heed his demand to fire senior C.D.C. staff members, he decided she was expendable.   These are not typical requests from a health secretary to a C.D.C. director. Not even close. None of us would have agreed to the secretary’s demands, and we applaud Dr. Monarez for standing up for the agency and the health of our communities.   When the C.D.C. was created in 1946, the average life expectancy in the United States was around 66 years. Today it is more than 78 years. While medical advances have helped, it is public health that has played the biggest role in improving both the length and the quality of life in our nation. The C.D.C. has led efforts to eradicate smallpox, increase access to lifesaving vaccinations and significantly reduce smoking rates.   The agency is also on the front lines in communities across the country, delivering crucial but often less visible wins — such as containing an outbreak of H.I.V. cases in Scott County, Ind., and protecting residents in East Palestine, Ohio, from toxic chemical exposure.   The C.D.C. is not perfect. What institution is? But over its history, regardless of which party has controlled the White House or Congress, the agency has not wavered from its mission. To those on the C.D.C. staff who continue to perform their jobs heroically in the face of the excruciating circumstances, we offer our sincere thanks and appreciation. Their ongoing dedication is a model for all of us. But it’s clear that the agency is hurting badly. The loss of Dr. Monarez and other top leaders will make it far more difficult for the C.D.C. to do what it has done for about 80 years: work around the clock to protect Americans from threats to their lives and health.   We have a message for the rest of the nation as well. This is a time to rally to protect the health of every American. Congress must exercise its oversight authority over Health and Human Services. State and local governments must fill funding gaps where they can. Philanthropy and the private sector must step up their community investments. Medical groups must continue to stand up for science and truth. Physicians must continue to support their patients with sound guidance and empathy. And each of us must do what public health does best: look out for one another.   The men and women who have joined the C.D.C. across generations have done so not for prestige or power but because they believe deeply in the call to service. They deserve a health and human services secretary who stands up for health, supports science and has their back. So, too, does our country.   * Dr. William Foege served as director of the C.D.C. from 1977 to 1983. Dr. William Roper served as director of the C.D.C. from 1990 to 1993. Dr. David Satcher served as director of the C.D.C. from 1993 to 1998. Dr. Jeffrey Koplan served as director of the C.D.C. from 1998 to 2002. Dr. Richard Besser served as acting director of the C.D.C. in 2009. Dr. Tom Frieden served as director of the C.D.C. from 2009 to 2017. Dr. Anne Schuchat served as acting director of the C.D.C. in 2017 and 2018. Dr. Rochelle Walensky served as director of the C.D.C. from 2021 to 2023. Dr. Mandy Cohen served as director of the C.D.C. from 2023 to 2025.   http://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/01/opinion/cdc-leaders-kennedy.html http://www.acponline.org/acp-newsroom/leading-medical-professional-societies-patient-sue-hhs-robert-f-kennedy-jr-for-unlawful-unilateral http://www.savehhs.org http://www.ama-assn.org/press-center/ama-press-releases/ama-statement-florida-ending-all-vaccine-mandates http://www.defendpublichealth.org/resource/talking-points-sounding-alarm-about-cdc-budget-cuts-fy2026 Visit the related web page
	View more stories