Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the Health and Human Services Secretary, made waves on Friday with a controversial proposal to eliminate public participation in many department decisions. Against the backdrop of significant changes sweeping federal health agencies, Kennedy’s move to restrict public commenting has sparked concerns about transparency and accountability within the department.
Set to be formally published in the Federal Register on March 3, the statement outlines HHS’s intention to remove the longstanding practice of allowing public input on agency plans. This shift represents a departure from the norm established under the Administrative Procedure Act, which has traditionally afforded individuals the opportunity to weigh in on proposed rules and regulations.
“This is a direct attack on the idea that HHS—a massive agency—should be transparent about its operations to the public,” remarked Alex Howard, an advocate for open government. The proposal seeks to exempt certain decisions, such as those related to agency management, personnel, public property, loans, grants, benefits, and contracts, from public scrutiny. HHS argues that seeking public input in these instances may be impractical, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.
The implications of this move are substantial, as it could limit the public’s ability to provide feedback on critical matters like grants, loans, and benefits—a significant portion of HHS’s work. The decision has raised eyebrows among former high-ranking officials in the Biden-Harris administration, who anticipate legal challenges to the proposed changes.
Since 1971, HHS has adhered to the Richardson Waiver, which prioritizes public involvement in rulemaking processes. The waiver has allowed for greater transparency and public engagement, ensuring that stakeholders could review agency plans and offer feedback. However, Kennedy’s decision to rescind this waiver reflects a shift towards minimizing public participation in the department’s operations.
Critics of the proposal argue that HHS’s justification for curtailing public input is unfounded. Cary Coglianese, a legal expert, contends that agencies have the flexibility to exceed the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act, casting doubt on Kennedy’s reasoning for limiting public engagement. The move has sparked concerns about the potential erosion of good governance practices and transparency within the department.
As Kennedy pushes for greater control over decision-making processes at HHS, questions loom about the impact on public welfare and democratic principles. Jeffrey Davis, a former HHS advisor, highlights the broad scope of the proposed changes and the need for clarity on what constitutes a “public benefit.” The lack of specificity in the proposal raises concerns about the potential implications for critical programs like Medicare.
Kennedy’s pledge to usher in a new era of radical transparency at HHS appears at odds with the recent proposal to curtail public participation. The decision to limit public engagement could have far-reaching consequences, impacting millions of Americans who rely on HHS programs and services. Doug Linkhart, president of the National Civic League, emphasizes the importance of public input in shaping policies that directly affect people’s lives.
While the fate of Kennedy’s proposal remains uncertain, the potential for pushback from Congress and the public underscores the significance of public engagement in decision-making processes. In a democracy, transparency and accountability are essential pillars that underpin effective governance and ensure that policies reflect the needs and values of the people they serve. Sarah Owermohle and Lizzy Lawrence contributed to this report, shedding light on the evolving landscape of public participation in federal agencies.
