1. United States
2. Maine
3. Letter

Oppose Nomination of Casey Means for U.S. Surgeon General Please do not confirm another unqualified person into a position of power and influence in the Trump administration.  As your constituent, I urge you to oppose the nomination of Casey Means for U.S. Surgeon General. This position requires rigorous, population-level public health expertise and clear, evidence-based communication. In a recent interview, she stated that vaccines are not her area of expertise, questioned aspects of the routine childhood immunization schedule, and specifically raised concerns about universal newborn hepatitis B vaccination. The CDC’s schedule is based on decades of safety and efficacy data and population-level risk prevention. At a time when measles cases and even deaths have resurfaced among unvaccinated children in the United States, national leadership must reinforce — not cast doubt on — established vaccine policy. She has also argued, in the context of pandemic policies, that the public should be wary of blindly trusting health “experts.” While debate is part of science, the Surgeon General’s role is to strengthen public trust in evidence-based institutions, not contribute to broader skepticism of them. In public interviews, Dr. Means has framed COVID-19 as fundamentally rooted in metabolic dysfunction, emphasizing metabolic health as the key lens for understanding the disease. COVID-19 is an infectious disease caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus; while metabolic health affects severity risk, public health guidance must clearly center viral transmission, vaccination, and outbreak control. In addition, public financial disclosure reports and independent reporting indicate that Dr. Means has earned income through health and wellness–related business activities, including promotion of metabolic health products and partnerships within the wellness industry. Although such income may be lawful and disclosed — and she has pledged to divest from several of these interests if confirmed — these financial relationships raise legitimate conflict-of-interest concerns for a Surgeon General, whose role includes issuing national health guidance that must be clearly independent of commercial influence. Public health leadership should be free not only from actual conflicts, but from the appearance of financial alignment with industries that could benefit from federal health messaging. For these reasons — including concerns about messaging clarity, vaccine confidence, and the need for strong epidemiologic grounding — I urge you to oppose her confirmation and support a nominee with demonstrated expertise in population-level public health science.