The Handcuffs Are Off. Now What, Secretary Kennedy?

MAHA, Congress, and the Washington Influence Machine

Audio Version:

---

By: Dr.s Jill Glasspool Malone and Robert W. Malone

So, this isn’t going to be a long post today, as we just checked into the “luxurious” Fairfield Inn in West Palm Beach for the OMG/James O’Keefe gala at Mar-a-Lago. Last weekend, we were at Brownstone, so that feeling of too much travel is starting to set in. An 8:15 AM flight meant getting up at 4:30 AM, and Robert is already fast asleep, sitting on the sofa next to me.

Once I finish writing, I’ll have to wake him up to edit this, as that is our usual protocol. One of us writes, the other edits, and then the original author re-edits. At some point, the piece gets fed into the AI machine for additional fact-checking and editing. Then back and forth it goes until we’re both satisfied. It’s quite a process, but that’s how we put Malone News pieces together.

But the truth is, I’m glad to be settled into our little hotel room, and I’m looking forward to tonight’s festivities.

Lots of rumors are circulating in Washington, and few of them are reassuring. But one particularly troubling situation is not a rumor. Amaryllis Fox Kennedy, daughter-in-law of HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., has joined Ballard Partners, one of Washington’s most politically connected lobbying firms and is now a federally registered lobbyist representing corporate interests, including companies involved in artificial intelligence and national security technologies.

At the same time, Ballard Partners openly advertises that Amaryllis Fox Kennedy continues to serve on both the President’s Intelligence Advisory Board and the Intelligence Oversight Board. Think about that. A registered corporate lobbyist, representing clients with interests in federal technology and national security policy, simultaneously holds positions on presidential intelligence advisory and oversight bodies. This raises serious questions about conflicts of interest, access to sensitive intelligence, and whether adequate safeguards and recusals are in place.

Separately, Calley Means alleges that Susie Wiles, the president’s former chief of staff, influenced HHS policy decisions in ways that benefited Ballard Partners and its clients. These allegations raise an entirely different set of concerns about corporate influence over federal health policy. Were HHS policy decisions being shaped by the administration’s public health priorities, or by the financial interests of politically connected lobbying firms? That question deserves a serious, independent investigation.

This raises questions about boundaries between public service and private influence. Where are the safeguards? What recusals are in place? And who is responsible for ensuring that corporate clients cannot benefit from privileged access?

For an administration that promised to drain the swamp, the optics could hardly be worse. And given the accusations now flying around Washington about lobbyists and influence-peddling, this arrangement deserves far more public scrutiny than it has received.

There is, however, another troubling issue that cannot be ignored. Two members of Secretary Kennedy’s extended family are now working for powerful Washington lobbying firms. Not only is Fox Kennedy, but his nephew by marriage, Jackson Hines, works for Checkmate Government Relations. Hines is not simply a distant relative; he is his nephew by marriage. He worked closely with Kennedy throughout his presidential campaign and transition, giving him direct experience with the Secretary and his political operation. There is even buzz that Jackson Hines lives in the Kennedy-Hines home in DC.

And consider Checkmate’s client list. The firm has represented pharmaceutical giants Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly, as well as vaccine manufacturer Sanofi. These are precisely the kinds of corporate interests affected by decisions made at HHS.

Complicating matters further, Susie Wiles’s daughter, Katie Wiles, works for Continental Strategy, another politically connected lobbying firm, raising additional questions about family relationships and access to the White House.

And this is hardly a problem confined to the Trump administration. In 2022, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer declined to bring two bipartisan Big Tech antitrust bills to a vote, despite pressure from their sponsors. At the time, his daughter Jessica was lobbying for Amazon, while his daughter Alison worked for Meta, both companies with significant interests in the legislation. Sixteen advocacy organizations called on Schumer to recuse himself over the apparent conflict. Schumer maintained that the votes weren’t there, a claim disputed by the bills’ sponsors. Neither bill received a Senate vote, and both died at the end of the congressional session. The outcome favored the companies his daughters happened to work for and who opposed this legislation.

Should relatives and former close advisers of Congressmen and Cabinet secretaries be allowed to turn their personal relationships into potentially lucrative lobbying careers, particularly when their firms represent industries regulated by the very agencies those officials oversee?

This may be perfectly legal under Washington’s existing rules. Perhaps that is exactly the problem. Why should corporations be allowed to purchase political access and influence through professional lobbyists in the first place? Congress has the power to close many of these loopholes, tighten conflict-of-interest laws, and restrict the revolving door between government and corporate lobbying. What is missing is the political will to do it.

So, now that Democrats control both houses of Congress, want to take bets on whether they will actually tackle Washington’s lobbying industry? Or will the money and influence keep flowing, regardless of which party holds power?

On the positive side, Kennedy finally seems to be speaking and acting as though the handcuffs are coming off. Stephen Miller’s internal memo, reportedly circulated today, directing Cabinet secretaries to take greater responsibility for their own messaging, management, and policy priorities, is an encouraging development. If this signals a genuine shift toward giving agency heads the authority to lead, make decisions, and deliver results without constant interference from the White House, it could be significant.

Kennedy has spent much of his tenure navigating political constraints, competing interests, and an entrenched federal bureaucracy. Perhaps we are finally approaching a point where he can move beyond rhetoric and begin delivering the substantive reforms that MAHA supporters were promised. The time for excuses is running out.

I would very much like to see Kennedy succeed in overhauling HHS and implementing all the changes he promised.

Dr. Toby Rogers, an autism specialist and activist, raises an important question about Calley Means’ recent appearance on Joe Rogan. Means portrayed President Trump as fully committed to MAHA while suggesting that Susie Wiles and her allies had undermined the administration’s health agenda. Rogers identifies seven disputed regulatory decisions:

“1. Granting legal immunity to Bayer for glyphosate.

2. Blocking the definition of ultra-processed food (that would have opened the door to regulation).

3. Approving the Moderna mRNA flu shot (that was ineffective and killed people in the clinical trial).

4. Ending the post-market safety studies for the Covid shots required by Makary and Prasad (who were subsequently fired).

5. Protecting Big Tobacco in the regulation of fruit-flavored vapes.

6. Relaxing the safety standards for kratom (“gas station heroin”).

7. Blocking David Kessler’s petition to strip “Generally Recognized as Safe” (GRAS) status from refined carbohydrates and sugars.”

Rogers argues that these decisions reflect a regulatory system captured by corporate interests, and he challenges the idea that responsibility can simply be shifted to Wiles.

His larger point is difficult to dismiss: If Wiles was responsible for obstructing these reforms, and she and her allies are now out of the way, what happens next? Will the administration revisit these decisions, reverse policies that undermined MAHA priorities, and establish a clear timetable for reform? And of course, what about all those other issues that still need to be addressed - such as ending the EUA for the COVID vaccine now?

Or will the personnel changes provide a convenient explanation for past failures without producing meaningful change? Rogers calls this a potential “limited hangout,” in which selected problems are acknowledged while the larger system remains untouched. This underlying demand for accountability is entirely reasonable. If Kennedy now has the authority to act, the public deserves to see results, not another round of explanations about why reform remains impossible.

Meanwhile, congressional Democrats are already lining up to demand Kennedy’s resignation, launch investigations, and threaten impeachment. The speed with which Kennedy has become a priority raises some uncomfortable questions. Is this primarily about protecting public health, or is it also about political theater, energizing the Democratic base, and weakening one of the Trump administration’s most recognizable figures? Kennedy remains enormously popular among MAGA Republicans, making him an obvious political target. But what about the powerful pharmaceutical, healthcare, and corporate interests that have spent decades lobbying Congress? How much influence do the pharmaceutical and healthcare industries have over the lawmakers now demanding Kennedy’s removal? Who is funding their campaigns, which lobbyists are meeting with their offices, and are corporate interests influencing the investigations and impeachment threats? These are questions that deserve serious scrutiny.

And if there is credible evidence that corporate lobbyists are paying members of Congress in exchange for using their official powers to target Kennedy or obstruct his agenda, the Department of Justice should investigate. That would raise questions of federal bribery and public corruption, not merely partisan politics. Congressional oversight is a constitutional responsibility, not a service to be bought and sold by corporate interests. The same standards of accountability must apply to Congress as to the executive branch.

Oversight should not become a substitute for governing.

Where are the Democrats’ proposals to eliminate harmful food additives, confront conflicts of interest at federal health agencies, improve transparency in drug regulation, or address the chronic disease epidemic?

If they believe Kennedy’s reforms are dangerous, they should explain precisely which policies they oppose and what they would do instead. And if any lawmakers are using their offices to serve undisclosed corporate interests, that deserves scrutiny regardless of party affiliation. The American people deserve genuine accountability, not two more years of partisan warfare while the country’s health problems remain unresolved.

Robert and I put an enormous amount of time and effort into Malone News. Whether we are home on the farm or traveling across the country, the research, writing, and analysis continue. We do this because we believe independent journalism matters, particularly when so many important stories are being ignored or buried.

But producing Malone News isn’t free. We pay for research, editing, technical support, and the many other expenses that come with running an independent publication.

If you value our work, please consider becoming a paid subscriber. Your support allows us to keep asking difficult questions, challenging powerful interests, and publishing without corporate sponsors or advertisers telling us what we can and cannot say.

If you’re already a paid subscriber, thank you! You make this work possible.

And if you’ve been reading for free, perhaps today is the day to join us. Every paid subscription makes a difference.