reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Thank God for James O'Keefe, he's done some interesting things over the years. It's amazing how many people open up when they think they're on a date with someone attractive. They'll admit to anything, like "Oh yeah, we did this because we hated Trump." These people need to learn to shut up. O'Keefe just released another video today about people trying to bypass the system to continue their work.

A hidden camera investigation caught a State Department visa specialist, Arsalyn Akhtar, making controversial statements. Akhtar, who reviews visa applications and can reverse rejected visas, admitted to advising Hispanic illegal immigrants to avoid police and not admit the truth. Akhtar expressed strong negative opinions about various groups, including Jews, white Americans, Yemeni people, Indians, and Bangladeshi people. He described Jewish people as "garbage people" promoting genocide and white Americans' culture as one of hatred and dominance. He said he hates Israel and Yemeni people "with a passion," and described Indians as "conniving" and Bangladeshi people as liars. Akhtar discussed creating a "canary mission" to target Americans he disagrees with. He also expressed a desire for Elon Musk to be "dragged out of the building with his hair plugs" and "lynched on the street." The journalist involved in the investigation stated they will not be deterred by lawsuits and encouraged government insiders to share information.

James O'Keefe reports on James Welch, an NIH genetic counselor, who appears to be manipulating language in research applications to circumvent government oversight, specifically from "Doge." Welch is allegedly advising researchers to replace terms like "women," "men," and "race" with alternatives like "adult girl," "XX," and "ancestry" to avoid grant cuts based on banned keywords. Welch claims that intramural research at NIH can "basically do anything" if they have the money. According to O'Keefe, an administration official stated there's no specific policy regarding racial preferences in health, suggesting Welch is creating an algorithm in his own mind. O'Keefe alleges this circumvents the will of President Trump and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Welch expresses disdain for RFK Jr. and suggests replacing Trump's portrait with Putin's. He also mentions potential NIH job cuts and jokes about buying guns, stating, "they won't let me close enough to these people." O'Keefe calls for transparency and accountability within government institutions.

The discussion connects multiple individuals and organizations to alleged covert intelligence activity and influence over major events. It begins by referencing Robert F. Kennedy’s campaign and Teddy Kennedy’s chief counsel, then claims that attorney Jeffrey Blattner (executive chairman of HIAS) told Ted Kennedy not to run against incumbent Linda B. Johnson, after which Robert Kennedy ran anyway. The transcript then links Jules Kroll to Robert Kennedy’s campaign team and asserts that Jules Kroll is IDF unit 82,300 while Jeffrey Blattner is Mossad. It claims that in 1972 Jules Kroll and his wife Lynn Korda Kroll began a private intelligence operation called J. Kroll and Associates, which later became Kroll Incorporated and grew into a major private intelligence and investigative firm. The speaker says Kroll and K2 Intelligence are related “distinction without a difference,” and that Kroll worked for clients including the Vatican and Bernie Madoff, as well as being used in cases such as Harvey Weinstein investigations. The transcript also claims that the firm’s Tel Aviv spinoff later had a chief technology officer who was an IDF sergeant in unit 82,300, described as an Israeli signals intelligence equivalent to the NSA. The “plot” relevance is tied to the speaker’s claim that Kroll’s wife had a role in UJA Federation (United Jewish Appeal), and it expands into UJA Federation’s alleged connections to broader power networks. It identifies Larry Silverstein as former chairman of UJA Federation (1994–1997), describes him as connected to “old money” Jewish families and Mossad-related figures, and brings in Brian Michael Jenkins (described as deputy chairman of Kroll) and L. Paul Bremer. The transcript claims French intelligence suspected Jenkins and Bremer of promoting threat prevention strategies and then causing attacks when organizations didn’t adopt them. It further states that the New York Port Authority hired Kroll in 1993 to conduct a terrorism vulnerability threat analysis for the World Trade Center Plaza and that the report included a line item suggesting (it said) it was unlikely but possible that the towers could be vulnerable to being hit by jet airliners. The transcript then asserts the Port Authority hired Kroll to run security for the World Trade Center Plaza immediately after Jenkins’ report, and links that year to Larry Silverstein becoming president of UJA Federation. A Mossad whistleblower is introduced: Victor Ostrovsky. The transcript says Ostrovsky, after serving in the Israeli Defense Force beginning at age 14 and becoming a Mossad agent for fourteen months, became a “burn notice”/whistleblower and wrote two books: *By Way of Deception* and *The Other Side of Deception*. It claims the books’ content was managed to avoid “mass scale antisemitism,” and lists ADL (Jonathan Greenblatt), APAC, and UJA as entities said to be arms of Mossad, citing social media training claims and appointment/training activities mentioned in the transcript. The transcript then moves to post–September 11 financial and structural changes, asserting that Solomon Smith Barney (described as the largest tenant of World Trade Center Building 7) was “crashed” and consolidated, and it claims $2.3 trillion referenced by Donald Rumsfeld was consolidated among Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch, BlackRock, Blackstone, Apollo, and a little to Goldman Sachs. It states there were 3,800 Jews who worked in both towers and claims only four Jewish deaths were reported on 09/11, including Daniel Lewin (cofounder of Akamai) described as reportedly the first 9/11 casualty and said to be IDF. Additional claims focus on corporate ownership: the transcript asks who is the largest shareholder of BlackRock and asserts Merrill Lynch and Morgan Stanley ownership (with Merrill Lynch said to own 45%), and it links BlackRock’s founding to Steven Schwarzman of Blackstone, and Rob Capito as UJA Federation. It further asserts connections among Blackstone, BlackRock, Apollo Global Management, Larry Silverstein, and James Tisch, alongside Mark Rich (born Marcel Reich), and describes Mark Rich as having brokered deals involving Iran, Israel, and the Ayatollah through Mossad agents that allegedly reduced oil costs despite US sanctions. It then identifies Michael Chertoff as “second generation Mossad” and claims he coauthored the Patriot Act with provisions to protect Israel from future investigation, later appointing him as secretary of the Department of Homeland Security and later chairman of BAE Systems. The transcript claims Rumsfeld later chaired a pharmaceutical company (Eli Lilly) and sat on boards connected to Investor AB. The discussion culminates in claims about COVID-19: it introduces Alvin Krongard, alleging he controls conservative media, helped plan and cover up COVID, and made trades before September 11 and before related outcomes. It asserts that BlackRock’s Aladdin (and similar tools “In-Q-Tel” and “Lab 72/Lab 41”) was used to model pandemic impacts, and claims Avril Haines (described as working directly for Tony Blinken) was sent to “Event 201” to seize control of the global financial system. Finally, it asserts COVID was “calibrated” to affect certain populations through ACE2 receptor polymorphisms, and it connects Sergei Brin and 23andMe to access to patient DNA data used for calibration. The transcript ends mid-sentence as it continues discussing these claims.

James O'Keefe reports on James Welch, a genetic counselor at the NIH, who appears to be manipulating language in research applications to circumvent government oversight, specifically from "Doge," by avoiding "banned words" like "women" and "race." Welch suggests using "ancestry" instead of "race" and making race a secondary objective. According to O'Keefe, this circumvention introduces political bias into science and could be a Hatch Act violation. Welch expresses disdain for Robert F. Kennedy Jr., his boss, and suggests replacing Trump's portrait with Putin's. He mentions potential NIH job cuts due to "Doge" and references his mother advising against violence, stating he is kept too far from people at work.

James O'Keefe reports on James Welch, an NIH genetic counselor, who appears to be manipulating language in research applications to circumvent government oversight, specifically from "Doge." Welch is allegedly coaching researchers to avoid using "banned words" like "women," "men," and "race" in grant applications, suggesting alternatives like "ancestry." Welch claims NIH intramural research can "basically do anything" if they have the money. According to O'Keefe, a senior administration official stated there's no specific policy regarding racial preferences in health, suggesting Welch is creating this algorithm in his own mind. O'Keefe alleges this circumvents the will of President Trump and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Welch also expresses disdain for Robert F. Kennedy Jr., his boss, and suggests replacing Trump's portrait with Putin's. He mentions potential NIH job cuts and jokes about buying guns, stating "they won't let me close enough to these people." O'Keefe calls for transparency and accountability within government institutions.

Hi, I'm James O'Keefe, an investigative reporter. I want to discuss your views on the deep state. Can you elaborate? I'm not interested in this conversation. But you've already spoken on it, and I have it recorded. What is your role at the White House? I advise on research and development policy. Are we done here? Have a nice night. You too. Have a good evening, Byron. There he goes, shuffling along.

As a policy advisor for the Treasury, I work on national security risks, monitoring investments into the US. Recently, Doge gained access to the Treasury to cut waste. I think we're an easy target, and there are people here who don't do much. My colleagues and I are worried about Doge and potential firings. What Elon is doing feels like government-sanctioned harassment. People here think it's not going to fire the right people, it's going to fire the wrong people. Many of us in my office are worried about being fired, especially the new hires. Some people care more about money than the country. I also feel that Doge shouldn't have access to the Treasury due to national security risks. No one knows what they want to do with the system. Giving people access to information creates vulnerabilities.

James O’Keefe and an undercover team report on the US Government Accountability Office (GAO). The GAO, historically tasked with overseeing government spending, is described as being in question by the undercover team. Speakers claim that administration actions have destroyed statistical agencies and data sources, but that they have stolen and backed up those data to preserve them. The team suggests this is in response to efforts to delete vaccine-related data, and that such actions could be aimed at undermining research on vaccines. Steve Putansu, a sixteen-year veteran at the GAO and a lecturer at American University, is presented as indicating that GAO is “stealing and preserving vaccine data that RFK and HHS has deleted,” a move described as potentially violating federal law. The narrative asserts that the GAO’s purpose is oversight and that its methods resemble a watchdog function, though the portrayal implies a more aggressive stance in protecting data. Within the dialogue, it is claimed that in some places there is resistance and that administration has destroyed statistical agencies and data sources. There is mention of “stolen and backed those things up,” with an implication that access to preserved data could be used to constrain or compel violations of law by others. The transcript notes that GAO faces political pushback, including threats of a 50% budget cut next year under the impoundment act, which defines as illegal the president’s withholding of funds congress has appropriated. GAO is said to have challenged spending changes as impoundment multiple times, prompting accusations of political targeting and leading to budget punishment. Legal experts are cited: Will Chamberlain, senior counsel at the Internet Accountability Project, is shown asserting that the director at GAO committed violations of three federal statutes. He describes this as a violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act for “intentionally accessing a computer without authorization or exceeding authorized access to obtain information from a US government department or agency.” He contends that the director is not a DHHS representative, and that taking information from HHS servers would constitute purloining information. Chamberlain also cites possible violations of 18 U.S.C. § 641 (theft of government property) and 18 U.S.C. § 2701 (unauthorized removal of public records). The report closes with a prompt for tips to the investigative team and a teaser about an upcoming undercover report. The segment emphasizes exposing alleged wrongdoing by government officials, framed as holding the corrupt elite accountable.

Doctor Moran, a senior advisor to Fauci, discussed deleting emails to avoid FOIA requests, which goes against NIH policies. He also mentioned avoiding "smoking guns" in emails. Moran shared internal discussions with Daszak and helped craft responses to FOIAs, actions not in line with NIH policies. Tabak expressed concern over these actions. Moran is still employed by NIH. The questions raised highlight potential transparency issues within the NIH. Translation: Doctor Moran, a senior advisor to Fauci, discussed deleting emails to avoid FOIA requests, which goes against NIH policies. He also mentioned avoiding "smoking guns" in emails. Moran shared internal discussions with Daszak and helped craft responses to FOIAs, actions not in line with NIH policies. Tabak expressed concern over these actions. Moran is still employed by NIH. The questions raised highlight potential transparency issues within the NIH.

James O'Keefe reports on NIH genetic counselor James Welch, who appears to be manipulating language in research applications to circumvent government oversight, specifically from "Doge," which Welch claims is cutting grants for research with certain keywords like "women" and "females." Welch suggests using "ancestry" instead of "race" to avoid triggering an algorithm, despite a senior administration official stating there's no specific policy against racial preferences in health research. Welch also expresses disdain for his boss, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and suggests replacing Trump's portrait with Putin's. He mentions potential NIH job cuts and jokes about buying guns, stating he can't get close enough to certain people at work. O'Keefe calls for transparency and accountability within government institutions.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss government funding for scientific and medical research, focusing on a grant referred to as a Doge grant and a series of other NSF-funded projects. The exchange opens with Speaker 0 asking, “What is a birthing person?” and presses Speaker 1 to identify who birthing people are, including whether it is another word for a woman. Speaker 1 says he is not familiar with the Doge grant and notes that he takes a position that “all kinds of government research, medical, pharmacy” should be considered, but does not clarify the term further. Speaker 0 labels the term as erasure language and asks again whether a conference titled “gender equity in the mathematical study of commutative algebra” is a valid form of government spending. Speaker 1 replies that mathematical research of all types is deserving of government support. Speaker 0 asks about “women and non binary mathematicians” as described on the National Science Foundation’s website. Speaker 1 again supports government investment in mathematics broadly, stating, “I think all kinds of government investment should be dedicated toward mathematics.” When Speaker 0 questions whether there should be any limit on spending, Speaker 1 reiterates that he is talking about Doge, and notes he is not familiar with the particular grant but supports government investment in mathematical biology. Speaker 0 introduces another grant, “TranscendentHealth, adapting an LGB plus inclusive teen pregnancy prevention program for transgender boys,” and asks whether that is a useful form of tax spending. Speaker 1 says he is not familiar with that grant but emphasizes that bench research and government investment in scientific and pharmacotherapy are important, though he does not describe the grant’s specifics. Speaker 0 then asks about “the racialized basis of trait judgments from faces,” stating it is a $500,000 NSF grant, and asks for Speaker 1’s view. Speaker 1 confirms unfamiliarity with the subject matter but again asserts that government investment in all kinds of scientific research is of utmost importance. The conversation moves to “prostate steroid therapy and cardiovascular risk in the transgender female,” with Speaker 0 pressing on the usefulness of funding. Speaker 1 maintains that government investment in scientific research is important, without further qualification. The exchange ends with Speaker 0 thanking Speaker 1 for his testimony, and Speaker 1 acknowledging appreciation for the opportunity to testify.

I work at the Treasury, reviewing investments into the US for national security risks. Recently, Doge gained access to the Treasury to cut waste, but I think we're an easy target. People I know have worked for the government for years and don't do much. Doge shouldn't have access to the Treasury due to national security risks. It's weird because no one knows what they want to do with the system or why they need access to random people's tax information. Giving people this kind of access creates vulnerabilities. They could misuse the information or give it to another country. Elon's actions feel like government-sanctioned harassment. Everyone in my office is worried about getting fired. Some people care more about money than the country.

I'm declining to be named in your story. I haven't given any quotes. My name is James O'Keefe. We have you on hidden camera talking about Elon Musk, Doge, and unlawful activities at Treasury. I encourage you to speak on the record. We have you on video saying government colleagues don't do much, and Doge targets us because it's easy. I'm a reporter. People deserve to know what you've said. Why did you share this with a stranger but not me? You specialize in foreign policy at the Treasury. What are you afraid of? It'll look bad when you won't speak to me, but you told a stranger everything. This is a major public policy issue. I'm running this story with or without you. I think the people need to know what's happening inside the government, including risks to national security.

An undercover video by O'Keefe Media Group features Raja Cholan from the NIH, who claims that COVID health initiatives were fabricated. He expresses skepticism about the effectiveness of vaccines, stating, "I don't even know if these vaccines stop you from getting COVID." Cholan also reveals that the six feet social distancing guideline lacked scientific backing and was "completely made up." He suggests that a Democrat in office would be better for the NIH, as they would face less scrutiny. The NIH has admitted to funding gain of function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, contradicting previous statements by Dr. Fauci. Allegations of kickbacks from pharmaceutical companies related to COVID vaccines are also mentioned. More undercover videos from the NIH tapes series are expected.

The Chinese and us are both developing ethnic bioweapons, with labs in Ukraine collecting Russian and Chinese DNA to target people by race.

I work for the Treasury, reviewing investments into the US for national security risks. Recently, Doge gained access to the Treasury to cut waste, but people are resisting. They're an easy target because there are people who don't do much, and we should be getting rid of them. What Elon is doing feels like government-sanctioned harassment, and everyone in my office is worried about being fired. No one knows what Doge wants to do with the system or why they need access to certain information. When you give people access, it creates vulnerabilities. They could take that information and give it to someone they shouldn't. There's a class of people in this country who care more about money, and Elon is showing that what he cares about is money.

I work for the Treasury, reviewing investments into the U.S. for national security risks, like we initially did with TikTok. My team monitors agreements with companies to ensure they address identified problems. Recently, Doge gained access to the Treasury to cut waste, and I admit we're an easy target. Some colleagues don't do much, and we should get rid of them. What Elon is doing feels like government-sanctioned harassment. Everyone in my office is worried about being fired. There's a class of people who care more about money than the country. Doge shouldn't have access to the Treasury due to national security risks. It's weird; no one knows what they want to do with the system or why they need access to sensitive information. Someone with access could give that information away, even if they're American.

James O'Keefe confronts an NIH employee about a video where he allegedly discusses changing the word "race" to "ancestry." O'Keefe questions if this is deceitful and suggests ancestry isn't the same as race for clinical trials. The employee defends the change as scientifically accurate, claiming expertise. O'Keefe disputes this, accusing him of avoiding accountability. The employee states he believes in good science and protecting people. As the employee drives away in his Tesla, he claims O'Keefe doesn't care about people. O'Keefe finds this ironic and asserts his organization cares deeply about informing the public.

James O'Keefe confronts an NIH employee about a video where the employee discusses changing the word "race" to "ancestry" in a protocol. O'Keefe questions if this is deceitful and suggests ancestry isn't the same as race for medical trials. The employee denies lying and claims the change was for scientific accuracy, stating he is an expert. O'Keefe questions why he would change the words and accuses him of avoiding accountability. The employee drives away in his Tesla, claiming O'Keefe doesn't care about people. O'Keefe says he cares about people knowing what's going on in their government. He describes running after the employee in boat shoes, calling it an adventure.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss the politicization of science and changes at the NIH. Over the last fifteen to twenty years, the NIH incorporated what Speaker 1 characterizes as political agendas rather than scientific agendas into its portfolio, with DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) being the most prominent example. A chunk of NIH funding went to projects focused on achieving social objectives rather than the health mission. Every NIH employee allegedly had to write a loyalty oath to DEI principles and was evaluated on devotion to the cause. Researchers inside and outside the NIH could access funds, with outside researchers more easily securing money if they promised to conduct DEI research, according to Speaker 1. Much of that research allegedly lacked a real scientific basis and was not science. Speaker 1 provides an example of projects they worked to deprioritize: a project asking whether structural racism is the root reason why African Americans have worse hypertension outcomes. The problem, they say, is that there is no way to test the hypothesis because, if structural racism is the cause, there is no workable control group to test the idea as true. They assert that such research did not translate into better health for anybody, including minority populations. They describe these projects as political agendas that do not belong in a science agency. The stated mission is to improve the health of everybody, including minority populations, but only if projects are clearly scientific, well defined, and have a real chance of improving health. Speaker 0 asks for clarification, summarizing that there were ideological or political projects receiving NIH funding. Speaker 1 confirms and adds another practice: when a good science project ended the year with leftover funds, program officers would approach researchers with leftover money and offer a “diversity supplement”—an add-on tied to DEI that was not actual science—to obtain extra funding. This, they claim, was a waste of taxpayer money with no real health benefit. They say they have since gotten rid of all of that.

The transcript presents a conspiratorial narrative that attributes the COVID-19 pandemic, its vaccines, and the global response to a “sinister Jewish role.” It states that the pandemic and the related “slavery to genocide initiative” are of Jewish religious origin, and that Jews created much of the technology, financed its weaponization, organized its global dissemination, and sit at the apex of its philosophical justification. It suggests that this is why some people describe it as the “Jew chat.” It proceeds to name a number of individuals in prominent positions as key influencers in the COVID-19 scenario in the United States and worldwide. These include Rochelle Walensky (CDC director); Anne Shuchat (CDC deputy director); Sherry Berger (CDC chief of staff); Mitchell Wolfe (CDC chief medical officer); Jeffrey Zients (White House coronavirus response coordinator); Andy Slavitt (COVID senior adviser); Richard (Rachel) Levine (assistant secretary of health and human services); Albert Bourla (chairman and CEO of Pfizer); Michael Dolsten (Pfizer chief scientist); Tal Zaks (Moderna chief scientist); Anatoli Altstine (chief scientist, Gamalia Institute for Russia COVID-19 vaccine); Joanne Waldstreicher (chief medical officer for Johnson & Johnson); and Yuval Noah Harari (a Jewish adviser to the World Economic Forum, described here as married to a man). The transcript asserts that these individuals and their roles determined how the COVID-19 crisis was handled and how the injections were rolled out. It also claims that Israel has never signed the 1972 Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention disarmament treaty. It further alleges, citing J. Bart Glassen, MD, that the Israeli Mossad infiltrated the NIH by 1988 and used the facility to orchestrate a large genocidal bioweapons attack on the world, naming the supposed chief Mossad agent within the NIH as Zami Bensassen. It references a report in BMC Medical Journal claiming that white and Black people were most likely to get sick from COVID-19, but that Ashkenazi Jews lack the ACE2 variant used by the spike protein to cause illness, asking whether this could be a coincidence. The narrative then asserts that the media pushed the pandemic narrative religiously, that Jews were central to the development of a “new technology” called mRNA injections, that Jews influenced the federal government to compel people to take the “harmful injections” misnamed as vaccines, and that social media implemented extreme censorship. It concludes that, in summary, COVID-19 was a “slavery to genocide” war waged against the people of the planet by Jews.

The convergence of interest in COVID was, holy crap, we funded this. "Let's outsource this to China. What's your first thought? We've got to cover this up." And that's exactly what he was doing. "The minute by minute of him going till three in the morning that first night, emails going back and forth and back and forth." "I didn't know what a burner phone was. I had to buy a burner phone." "It was no big deal. It turns out it just came from animals." "These people were very concerned. Maybe not that they were gonna be killed by foreign agents, but that the public was going to find out that they had been funding this very dangerous research and that millions of people die because of lack of oversight." "There's never been a more extraordinary cover up in the sense that these people were saying in public the opposite of what they were saying in private." "Freedom of information became the tool that uncovered a lot of this." "In private, Fauci is saying, I'm fifty fifty, whether this came from the lab or animals." "In public, you're a conspiracy theorist ... we should bring you down." "Him and Francis Collins are talking back and forth about bringing down Jay Bhattacharya." "This is just extraordinary. We have the proof."

I'm James O'Keefe, and I caught a White House advisor, Byron, on hidden camera discussing the "deep state." People joke about it, but it’s real to some degree. One way the bureaucracy slows things down is by creating commissions to study issues, which can delay progress for years. I also recorded him saying the bureaucracy could crush incoming leadership, like RFK Jr. Byron admitted the bureaucracy exists and should implement the policies of elected leaders while also advising them. He said he advises on research and development policy. To all the bureaucrats in Washington, you're on notice. Speak openly, or we'll record you. We're going to be recording you en masse.

The speaker discusses internal resistance to RFK Jr.’s policies and the idea that “deep staters” have been entrenched in government. They mention being forwarded an anecdote from a “good career employee.” They point to the FDA, noting that when Marty Makary came in, he had only about 10 political appointees he could choose. Jay Bhattacharya at the NIH allegedly had one political appointee. The speaker claims that every government employee is a “deep stater” who has been there a long time and that an email from a good employee circulates a CIA manual called How to Be a Bad Bureaucrat and Subvert an Institution from Within. The email supposedly asserts that 90% of employees at HHS, which has 70,000 employees, are talking in lunchrooms about the manual and telling each other that their job is to save America and save science from the agenda of President Trump and RFK Jr. The speaker asserts this reflects how people think across major departments and asks how to get rid of them, suggesting firing them as a solution, and mentions SIOP in this context. The CDC is presented as a case study of failure, described as a public health disaster in its COVID-19 response. The speaker alleges that the CDC’s guidance on school lockdowns copied directly from a teacher union document with which they were aligned, reproducing paragraphs from the teacher’s union advocating for two years of school shutdowns. It is claimed that the CDC also said that cloth masks were fine. The speaker says the CDC led the response and that the NIH funded the entire pandemic, including gain-of-function research, asserting that this constitutes “the creation of the pandemic.” In contrast, RFK Jr. is said to have fired three employees, and this action is described as national news. The overall narrative emphasizes a view of pervasive internal opposition within federal agencies, a controversial and sweeping critique of the CDC, NIH, and HHS responses to the pandemic, and a framing of RFK Jr.’s personnel decisions as transformative and newsworthy.