Wall Street Analysts Criticize RFK Jr.’s Role as Health Secretary

In an unprecedented move, analysts from Cantor Fitzgerald have expressed pointed criticism of Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s position as Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). This rare occurrence within Wall Street analyst communications underscores growing concerns regarding Kennedy’s approach to public health, particularly in the context of vaccine skepticism and the resignations of key FDA officials.

Analyst Concerns Over RFK Jr.’s Anti-Science Agenda

On Monday, April 1, 2025, analysts Josh Schimmer and Eric Schmidt of Cantor Fitzgerald highlighted their concerns over what they described as RFK Jr.’s “apparent anti-science and libertarian agenda.” They called on the Trump administration to re-evaluate his role at HHS, emphasizing that his actions may jeopardize public health initiatives.

The call for reevaluation came in the wake of Peter Marks, who serves as the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) chief vaccine regulator, announcing his resignation. Marks cited friction with Kennedy, stating that Kennedy sought “subservient confirmation of his misinformation and lies.” In their research note, Schimmer and Schmidt strongly stated, “Pushing out one of the most trusted leaders of the FDA to promote an anti-science agenda is a step too far for us.”

Health and Safety Implications

As vaccine skepticism spikes and the measles outbreak resurges, the analysts articulated that their criticism transcends political implications; it is deeply rooted in health and safety. They commented, “We are not proud to have RFK Jr. at HHS. He is steering this country into dangerous territory based on his own whims and invalidated beliefs.” With Kennedy’s focus seemingly straying from critical health issues to personal ideologies, the analysts stress the urgent need for leadership that prioritizes scientific evidence.

Impact on Pharmaceutical Stocks

Marks’ resignation resulted in an immediate downward trend for vaccine-related stocks. Shares for Moderna Inc. (MRNA) fell by 8.9%, while Novavax (NVAX) saw a decline of 8.4%. Truist analysts remarked, “we expect companies with vaccine businesses to be volatile this week.” The uncertainty surrounding Marks’ departure has raised apprehensions about the future of COVID-19 vaccinations and the potential for a successor to align with RFK Jr.’s controversial views.

Contrasting sentiments emerged from Stifel analysts, who framed Marks’ exit as a significant fear among biotech investors amid Trump’s administration. They noted that Marks’ dedication to transparency and flexibility at the FDA had been pivotal. With potential implications for the biotech sector, analysts are increasingly wary of a regulatory environment that might favor political agendas over scientific integrity.

Broader Implications Amid Political Turbulence

The growing tension between public health policies and political agendas has sparked concern among the scientific community. Approximately 1,900 scientists issued a letter warning of the “real danger” posed by RFK Jr.’s influence at HHS, further illustrating the divide. Amidst these events, markets continue to exhibit volatility, a sentiment exacerbated by President Trump’s push for renovating global trade agreements and cutting government spending.

As the situation unfolds, other Wall Street analysts have also adopted sharper tones regarding political influences on corporate leadership. For instance, Wedbush analyst Dan Ives urged Elon Musk to enhance his leadership amid efforts to reduce government spending, calling for a more proactive stance on behalf of stakeholders.

Conclusion

The pointed criticism from Cantor Fitzgerald’s analysts reflects a growing unease over the implications of RFK Jr.’s approach to public health as he leads the HHS. With vaccine skepticism on the rise and key departures from the FDA, the need for credible, science-backed policies in public health has never been more urgent. As this situation develops, the attention on leadership within HHS poses significant implications for public health, vaccine strategies, and ultimately, the stock performance of biotech and pharmaceutical companies.