UPDATE (December 13, 2024, 4:56 p.m. ET): This piece was updated to include a statement from Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.
When Time magazine sat down with Donald Trump for its newly published cover story, the discussion turned to the president-elect’s controversial personnel choices, including his intention to nominate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to lead the Department of Health and Human Services. Time began by asking whether he’d sign off on a Kennedy effort to end childhood vaccination programs.
“We’re going to have a big discussion,” Trump replied. “The autism rate is at a level that nobody ever believed possible.”
Note, the question was about childhood vaccination programs, and the Republican, unprompted, quickly volunteered concerns about autism.
The back and forth continued for a while, culminating in a simple question: Does Trump agree with the conspiratorial environmental lawyer about the connection between vaccines and autism?
“I want to see the numbers. It’s going to be the numbers,” the president-elect replied. As part of the same answer, the Republican suggested he and his team — which presumably would include Kennedy — are going to conduct “studies,” adding, “We’re going to know what’s good and what’s not good. We will know for sure what’s good and what’s not good.”
The next week, Trump sat down with NBC News’ Kristen Welker for a “Meet the Press” interview and said largely the same thing. NBC News reported:
President-elect Donald Trump suggested that Robert F. Kennedy Jr., his pick to run Health and Human Services, will investigate supposed links between autism and childhood vaccines, a discredited connection that has eroded trust in the lifesaving inoculations.
“I think somebody has to find out,” Trump said, while continuing to suggest there might be some connection between vaccines and autism. “Something is going on,” the Republican added. “I don’t know if it’s vaccines. Maybe it’s chlorine in the water, right?”
No. Not right.
At first blush, a regular person might not see Trump’s comments as especially problematic. He said he supports research and getting a definitive answer to the underlying question. What’s wrong with that?








