Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s recent decision to transfer his financial interests in vaccine lawsuits to his son has drawn both criticism and comparisons to similar actions by other public officials. During his confirmation hearings for the position of Health and Human Services secretary, Kennedy faced questions about his stake in lawsuits against pharmaceutical companies, specifically Merck and its Gardasil vaccine. He subsequently pledged to divest his interest by assigning it to his adult son.
Legal experts offer differing opinions on the adequacy of this move. Some argue it doesn't fully address potential conflicts of interest, while others consider it comparable to actions taken by figures like President Biden and former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who have faced scrutiny over family business dealings. Some experts, like Hans von Spakovsky of the Heritage Foundation, believe the transfer sufficiently addresses ethical concerns, particularly given the limitations on claims against vaccine manufacturers imposed by federal law.
The federal government's National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, which handles vaccine-injury payments, further mitigates any potential impact Kennedy could have, according to Spakovsky. However, Jim Copland of the Manhattan Institute, while acknowledging the program's role, suggests Kennedy could still indirectly benefit. He draws a parallel to a hypothetical scenario involving a Defense Department secretary and a military contractor, highlighting the potential for conflicts even after divestment to a family member.
Fox News legal analyst Andy McCarthy criticizes Kennedy's approach, arguing that his efforts to retain a connection to the lawsuits indicate a genuine conflict of interest. McCarthy contrasts Kennedy's situation with that of President Trump, whose business dealings were known to voters before his election. He also questions the Republican response to Kennedy's actions, given prior criticism of President Biden's family's financial dealings.
