On Chicago’s Morning Answer, policy analyst Phil Kerpen argued that restoring credibility at federal health agencies requires abandoning mandates, fixing broken data systems, and respecting constitutional process on trade—three themes that cut across the pandemic hangover and current economic fights.
Kerpen, president of American Commitment and a principal at the Committee to Unleash Prosperity, said the backlash to HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s Senate testimony is coming from the same public-health establishment that “failed catastrophically” during COVID. He contended that the only path to rebuilding trust is to make vaccination and other health decisions voluntary, present clear data, and persuade rather than compel. He cited Sweden’s high childhood vaccination rates despite having no mandates, noting that confidence can rise when coercion falls.
As coastal jurisdictions flirt again with mask advisories, Kerpen called the annual “late-summer COVID wave” in warm climates a predictable pattern that typically recedes as schools reopen and other viruses circulate. He criticized renewed recommendations—like a New York Times back-to-school guide for toddler masks—as ritualistic rather than evidence-driven. He also faulted the American Academy of Pediatrics for politicized reversals during 2020 school closures and said credibility eroded when expert groups appeared to follow union priorities instead of data.
Kerpen defended the approach inside HHS as less “antivax” than opponents claim, pointing to appointments such as Jay Bhattacharya, Marty Makary, and Vinay Prasad as signs of a science-first posture. He argued CDC’s core problem was not solely leadership but a bureaucracy that resisted control; if some staff wish to depart, he said, replacing them with reform-minded professionals would be healthy.
Turning to the economy, Kerpen warned that monthly jobs reports are increasingly unreliable. He cited low employer survey response rates since the pandemic, widening gaps between the household and establishment surveys, and heavy reliance on the “birth–death” model—a statistical guess at new business formation. With large revisions now routine, he urged incentives (including potential tax credits) to boost survey participation and a more data-anchored methodology so markets aren’t “flying blind” on first release.
On trade, Kerpen forecast that the Supreme Court could curb parts of President Trump’s tariff authority—especially measures grounded in older emergency statutes—while leaving Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs intact. Regardless of the legal outcome, he pressed for Congress to codify any lasting tariff schedule. Major economic policy, he said, should be legislated, not improvised through expansive executive readings; otherwise, the same precedent could empower future administrations to impose sweeping policies conservatives would oppose.
Kerpen’s through line: public institutions regain legitimacy by telling the truth, improving their data, and following the rules—even when those rules complicate near-term goals.