On August 27, the CDC abruptly announced Director Susan Monarez was “out,” a stunning “dismissal” that came less than four weeks after she was sworn in on July 31, leaving America’s top public‑health agency in turmoil and reigniting the fight over whether politics is throttling science. In practical terms, this was a record‑short tenure that underlined how fragile the CDC’s leadership has become in a hyper‑polarized climate, with the White House making clear her direction wasn’t aligned with Trump’s “Make America Healthy Again” agenda.
Susan Monarez. AP file photo.
Monarez was the first CDC director ever to undergo Senate confirmation after Congress changed the law in 2023, and she was also the first director without a medical degree since the early 1950s, a profile some hoped would steady a battered agency. That reform—baked into post‑pandemic accountability efforts—was supposed to bolster legitimacy, yet her short stint instead exposed how the CDC’s institutional guardrails can still be overridden by raw political pressure.
She wasn’t the Trump team’s initial pick; an earlier nominee, former congressman and vaccine skeptic Dave Weldon, was pulled shortly before a confirmation showdown, setting up Monarez’s late‑March selection and months of drift at the agency. In that vacuum, HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. increasingly put his stamp on vaccine policy, with top immunization decisions narrowed and career scientists sidelined, foreshadowing the clash Monarez would inherit on day one.
Donald Trump. AP file photo.
The vaccine showdown
Officially, the White House said Monarez’s policy direction didn’t fit the President’s health agenda; but the core rupture, as multiple outlets reported, was her refusal to back Kennedy’s moves to weaken vaccination, restructure the CDC, and fire senior experts—classic political‑retaliation‑against‑science territory. As her attorneys put it, “she chose protecting the public over serving a political agenda”—and that’s when the crosshairs found her.
The blowback inside CDC was immediate: Chief Medical Officer Debra Houry and immunizations chief Demetre Daskalakis resigned within hours, followed by longtime infectious‑disease leader Dan Jernigan and data director Jennifer Layden, all citing deep concerns about censorship, politicization, and the flood of misinformation. Their exits weren’t symbolic—they were a brain drain of institutional memory at the worst possible time, leaving a demoralized agency already reeling from layoffs and leadership churn.
Houry underscored the obvious: vaccines save lives, yet inflated risk claims and viral falsehoods have pushed measles to a three‑decade high, a grim marker of how disinformation can translate into real‑world harm and policy paralysis. All this was followed by an allegedly anti-vaccine shooting at CDC’s Atlanta headquarters earlier in the month that left a responding police officer dead, further rattling staff as political leaders ducked hard truths and the agency pleaded for space to do science.
The bigger picture
Daskalakis’s resignation landed like a thunderclap, warning that the line between science and ideology had broken down and that current directions risked undercutting vaccination access and public health itself—a sentiment that echoed across the profession. The tone from departing leaders was clear: an agency built to protect populations was being forced into policies that don’t meet scientific reality, with consequences that will be felt far beyond Atlanta.
The White House tapped HHS Deputy Secretary Jim O’Neill as acting director, a Silicon Valley investor with long‑standing ties to Peter Thiel and a deregulatory bent that critics say could further erode scientific independence inside a mission‑critical health agency. O’Neill’s lack of medical or scientific training has already sparked controversy in Congress and among experts, sharpening anxieties over how the CDC will navigate vaccines, outbreaks, and public trust under interim stewardship.
Strip away the noise, and the pattern is hard to miss: a Senate‑confirmed director defends vaccine science, refuses to purge career experts, and is out in under a month, while senior staff head for the exits as measles surges and a fatal attack at CDC deepens the sense of crisis. This isn’t normal governance—it’s a cautionary tale of how politicization shrinks the space for expertise, chills evidence‑based decision‑making, and ultimately sends the bill to Americans’ health and safety.
Deep Throat
** The blog article is the sole responsibility of the author and does not represent the position of our company. **
Trump wasted not one second after US forces grabbed Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro. He made it clear that he was eyeing the country's oil riches. But here's the catch: America's biggest oil companies aren't biting. Industry analysts confirm what the companies won't say publicly—even if these firms wanted back in, Venezuela's crumbling infrastructure and chaos on the ground mean Trump's fantasy of quick oil profits is far from easy to come true.
Trump promises Big Oil will pour billions into Venezuela. The oil giants say they never got the memo. AP Photo
Minutes after the military operation wrapped, Trump stood at a press conference making promises. Major American oil companies would pour into Venezuela, he declared, investing billions to fix the country's shattered oil infrastructure "and start making money for the country". Meanwhile, he reiterated that the US embargo on all Venezuelan oil remains in full effect.
Those sanctions have crushed Venezuelan exports into paralysis. Documents from Venezuela's state oil company and sources close to the situation confirm storage tanks and floating facilities filled up fast over recent weeks. Multiple oil fields now face forced production cuts.
White House Courts Reluctant Executives
Reuters revealed the Trump administration plans meetings this week with executives from major US oil companies. The agenda: pushing these firms to restore and grow oil production in Venezuela following the military action. The White House sees this as a critical step toward getting American oil giants back into the country to tap the world's largest proven oil reserves.
But Trump's eagerness hasn't translated into corporate enthusiasm. Several major US oil companies are taking a wait-and-see approach, watching Venezuela closely. ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips, and Chevron all denied any prior communication with the White House about Venezuela. This directly contradicts Trump's claim over the weekend that he had already met with "all" US oil firms both before and after Maduro's capture.
Venezuela sits on roughly 17% of the world's proven oil reserves—first place globally. Yet US sanctions and other pressures have gutted its production capacity. Current output runs around 1 million barrels daily, barely 0.8% of global crude production.
World's largest oil reserves, strangled by US sanctions. Trump's quick-profit scheme hits a hard reality. AP Photo
Only One Company Stays Put
Chevron remains the sole major US oil company still operating Venezuelan fields. The firm has worked in Venezuela for over a century, producing heavy crude that feeds refineries along the Gulf Coast and beyond. A company spokesperson said on the 3rd that the current priority centers on "ensuring employee safety, well-being, and asset integrity," adding they "will continue to operate in accordance with laws and regulations."
ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips previously invested in Venezuela. In the 1970s, the Venezuelan government nationalized the oil industry, reopened to foreign investment by century's end, then demanded in 2007 that Western companies developing oil fields form joint ventures with Venezuelan firms under Venezuelan control. ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips pulled out. Neither company has responded to Trump's latest remarks about US capital entering Venezuela.
One oil industry executive told Reuters that companies fear discussing potential Venezuelan business at White House-organized meetings due to antitrust concerns.
Benefits Flow to First Mover
Francisco Monaldi, director of the Latin America Energy Program at Rice University's Baker Institute for Public Policy, expects Chevron would likely benefit first if Venezuela opens oil projects to the US. Other oil companies, he notes, will watch Venezuela's political situation closely and observe the operating environment and contract compliance before making moves.
Mark Christian, business director at an Oklahoma energy consulting firm, lays out the baseline: US companies will only return to Venezuela if they're certain of investment returns and receive at least minimal security guarantees. Lifting sanctions on Venezuela stands as a prerequisite for US companies re-entering that market.
Reality Check on Oil Profits
Even with sanctions lifted, the Trump administration won't find making money from invasion-acquired oil that easy.
Industry insiders admit large-scale restoration of Venezuelan oil production demands years of time and billions in investment, while confronting major obstacles: dilapidated infrastructure, uncertain political prospects, legal risks, and long-term US policy uncertainty.
Peter McNally, global head of industry analysis at Third Bridge, said, "There are still many questions that need to be answered about the state of the Venezuelan oil industry, but it is clear that it will take tens of billions of dollars to turn that industry around." He then added that it could take at least a decade of Western oil majors committing to the country.
Ed Hirs, an energy expert at the University of Houston, pointed to a pattern: US military invasions of other countries in recent years haven't delivered substantial returns to American companies. The history of Iraq and Libya may repeat itself in Venezuela.
