Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. fired both vice chairs of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force on May 11, leaving the influential medical panel at half strength and without top leadership as it faces its longest stretch of inactivity in memory.
John Wong and Esa Davis, the two dismissed leaders, received letters stating their terminations were "effective immediately" following what Kennedy described as a "review of current USPSTF appointments." An HHS spokesman confirmed the firings, as The Hill first reported.
The dismissals cut the task force to just eight sitting members out of a normal complement of sixteen. Five other members saw their terms expire at the start of this year, and Kennedy has not named replacements. The panel, which determines which preventive medical services insurers must cover at no cost to patients, has not convened since March of last year.
Kennedy's termination letters struck a careful tone. He wrote that the action was "administrative in nature and is unrelated to your performance or many years of dedicated service to the Task Force." He added that the move should not "be understood as a removal based on your leadership or contributions."
Instead, Kennedy framed it as institutional housekeeping:
"To the contrary, the Department is taking this step to help protect the Task Force and preserve confidence in the continuity and durability of its work."
He even invited both Wong and Davis to reapply, writing that their "continued participation would be highly valued."
That language, praising the people you just fired, then asking them to come back, may read as contradictory. But the legal and bureaucratic logic behind it traces to a Supreme Court ruling from last June.
In Kennedy v. Braidwood, the Supreme Court ruled that the Health Secretary holds the power to hire and dismiss USPSTF panelists at will. The decision also gave the secretary authority to delay or veto recommendations the task force issues if he disagrees with them.
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Director Roger Klein cited that ruling in emails responding to questions from Wong and Davis. Klein wrote that "the Secretary's decision reflects his exercise of appointment and supervisory authority over the USPSTF."
The broader pattern of leadership changes across HHS agencies has drawn attention in recent months, but the USPSTF shakeup carries particular weight because of the panel's direct impact on what preventive care Americans receive without out-of-pocket costs.
Three days after their dismissals, on May 14, Wong and Davis sent an email pressing for answers. They noted that Kennedy's letters "neither state nor imply that our original appointments were somehow unlawful or inappropriate." Wong had 10 months remaining on his four-year term. Davis had 22 months left.
Both wrote that deciding whether to reapply was complicated by the lack of clarity around their removal:
"The decision... is difficult to make, however, when the reasons for our termination, and now, the foundational validity of our respective appointments and ensuing years of service, have engendered substantial confusion."
Klein responded the same day but offered little in the way of specifics. He wrote that their questions "implicate legal and policy judgments that it would not be appropriate for me to address in external correspondence."
He did draw one distinction clearly: "The institutional questions the Secretary has identified go to the circumstances of the appointments themselves, not to the quality or value of your service. Those are separate matters, and the Department's respect for your many contributions is genuine."
The task force reviews scientific evidence and issues recommendations on services including cancer screenings and HIV prevention medications, using a grading scale. Under the Affordable Care Act, insurers must cover services that receive an A or B grade at no cost to patients.
The panel typically meets three times a year. Kennedy indefinitely postponed the last three scheduled meetings. That means the USPSTF has been idle since March of last year, more than fourteen months without a session.
Kennedy told lawmakers last month that the panel had "been lackadaisical and negligent for 20 years." He signaled a full reset was coming.
"We're now bringing new members on who have a clear mission."
In April, Kennedy solicited nominations for open positions on the task force. The deadline for submissions is May 23. Kennedy and AHRQ Director Klein will select new members without the two fired vice chairs involved in the process.
Public health experts and advocates have voiced concern that Kennedy could dismiss the entire task force and fill it with ideologically aligned members, similar to the friction that preceded other health-agency departures. Those critics point to what Kennedy did with a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention vaccine panel as a template they fear could be repeated.
The distinction matters. A panel that has gone stale over two decades, Kennedy's own characterization, may well need fresh blood and a sharper mandate. The Supreme Court gave the secretary clear legal authority to make that happen. Nobody disputes that.
But a task force operating at half capacity, with no meetings for over a year, no replacements named for five expired seats, and both vice chairs removed mid-term, is not a panel undergoing reform. It is a panel that has stopped functioning.
The volunteer medical experts who serve on the USPSTF hold four-year terms. Their recommendations carry real weight in the daily lives of Americans who rely on preventive screenings covered by their insurance. Every month the panel sits idle is a month those recommendations go unreviewed, unupdated, and potentially outdated.
Kennedy's stated goal, protecting "the integrity and continuity of the Task Force's mission," as Klein put it, is reasonable on its face. The question is whether the execution matches the rhetoric. Firing two leaders, postponing every meeting, and leaving eight seats vacant does not look like continuity.
The previous HHS leadership under the Biden administration left its own trail of institutional drift and politicized decision-making. Kennedy is right that the panel needed accountability. The task force's work should serve patients, not bureaucratic inertia.
But accountability requires follow-through. It requires naming qualified replacements, scheduling meetings, and letting the reconstituted panel do its job. Clearing the deck is only half the work.
Neither Wong nor Davis responded to requests for comment from The Hill. Their silence, combined with Klein's refusal to explain the legal reasoning in writing, leaves the public with an incomplete picture of what exactly prompted the firings, beyond the generic language about a "review."
Kennedy has signaled he wants a task force with a "clear mission." The nomination deadline arrives May 23. After that, the administration will have to show whether this was a genuine reset or just a prolonged vacancy dressed up as reform.
The administration's health-related decisions have faced intense scrutiny from all sides. What matters now is results, not more letters praising the people you just let go.
Reforming a stagnant federal panel is a legitimate exercise of authority. Leaving it gutted and grounded for a year and counting is not reform, it is neglect by another name. Kennedy has the legal power and the stated intention. What he owes the public now is a functioning task force, not just a clean slate.