By [Your Name/Journalistic Desk]
In the early days of his tenure as Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), Robert F. Kennedy Jr. entered the department with a promise that resonated with both his supporters and his critics: he would usher in an era of "radical transparency." Citing his own lengthy history as an attorney who spent years litigating under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), Kennedy pledged to dismantle the bureaucratic stonewalling that had characterized previous administrations.
Yet, nearly two years into his leadership, the reality at the Department of Health and Human Services stands in stark contrast to that campaign rhetoric. While Kennedy recently pointed to a "publicly available calendar" as evidence of his commitment to openness, that document remains a ghost—non-existent to the journalists, lawmakers, and public interest groups tasked with holding his agency accountable.
The Core Conflict: A Promise Unkept
The discrepancy between Kennedy’s public messaging and the operational reality at HHS has become a flashpoint for media organizations and transparency advocates. Despite repeated assertions that he is operating in the sunlight, the administration has systematically dismantled the infrastructure designed to provide public access to government records.
STAT and other investigative outlets have spent over a year attempting to secure basic documentation, including the calendars of Kennedy and his principal deputy chief of staff, Stefanie Spear. These requests, filed through standard FOIA channels, have been met with silence, delayed responses, and a pervasive lack of acknowledgment. The irony is not lost on observers: the man who once railed against agencies for hiding information behind red tape now presides over a department where FOIA requests are effectively entering a black hole.
A Chronology of Stalled Accountability
The deterioration of access at HHS did not happen overnight. It has been a systematic process of attrition, marked by key milestones that highlight the administration’s pivot away from openness.
- February 2025: STAT submits an initial request for the first two weeks of Kennedy’s calendar. The request goes unfulfilled.
- April 2025: During a press conference, Kennedy addresses the "frustration" of FOIA delays, explicitly promising to restore FOIA offices and facilitate easier information sharing. He frames his past litigation experience as a qualification for making the agency more responsive.
- May 2025: The Center for Biological Diversity files a lawsuit against HHS, alleging the department failed to release Kennedy’s calendar and key records regarding the development of federal dietary guidelines.
- June 2025: Requests are filed for the calendars of Stefanie Spear, who is widely considered the secretary’s closest gatekeeper, attending nearly every meeting on his schedule.
- September 2025: Three separate inquiries by STAT are submitted; none receive the legally mandated 10-day acknowledgment.
- March 2026: Legal counsel representing journalists is informed that one of their pending appeals is stuck behind more than 600 others in the agency’s queue.
- Present Day: The HHS web portal previously used by the public to track the status of their requests has been taken offline, further obscuring the process.
The Infrastructure of Opacity
The failure to provide documents is not merely a result of administrative backlog; it is a policy choice. Early in his term, the Trump administration oversaw a significant reduction in staffing at the very offices tasked with reviewing and releasing records. By slashing the personnel responsible for processing FOIA requests, the administration effectively created a bottleneck that renders the law toothless.
Internal HHS officials have described the current state of the FOIA office as a "significant transition," a phrase that has become a recurring refrain when inquiries are made regarding the status of public records. Furthermore, a promised "new portal" for accessing government data—first teased by Kennedy in early 2025—remains in development, with officials offering vague assurances that it will be available "soon."
The impact of these cuts is measurable. The agency is currently grappling with a backlog of approximately 12,000 requests. For the request regarding Stefanie Spear’s calendar, the agency has already signaled a 180-day wait period, citing "limited resources."
Official Responses and Selective Access
The Department of Health and Human Services has maintained a posture of calculated reticence. When asked by the press for clarification on the existence of the "publicly available calendar," the number of FOIA staff currently employed, or the metrics regarding response times compared to previous administrations, the HHS press office has declined to provide substantive comment.
This silence extends to the agency’s interactions with the media. Kennedy has openly admitted that the department blacklists specific journalists and media outlets if their coverage is deemed unfavorable or if the agency disagrees with their reporting. He has explicitly noted that HHS leadership is "unwilling" to engage with The New York Times on topics they deem important.
This exclusionary policy is mirrored at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), an agency under the HHS umbrella. CMS, which manages trillions of dollars in federal funds, has effectively walled itself off from traditional press inquiries. In a statement provided to STAT, CMS asserted, "No reporter is entitled to interviews, press calls, or access to internal staff." This stance suggests a fundamental shift in how the government views its relationship with the public: not as a servant to the taxpayer, but as an entity entitled to curate its own narrative without external scrutiny.
Political Fallout: A Bipartisan Frustration
The lack of responsiveness has not only angered journalists but has also alienated members of Congress. Democratic lawmakers have been particularly vocal, documenting a pattern where Kennedy agrees to provide information during public hearings, only to ignore follow-up requests from congressional staff once the cameras are off.
Even among Republicans, there is a quiet, growing concern. While some lawmakers received initial promises of cooperation, many have been unable to confirm whether the Secretary followed through on his commitments. The inability of Congress to exercise its oversight function effectively suggests that the administration’s "radical transparency" may be more of a political slogan than a governing philosophy.
The "Insiders" Exception
While the broader public and press face a brick wall, there is evidence that the administration’s gatekeeping is not applied uniformly. Brian Hooker, chief scientific officer for Children’s Health Defense—the vaccine-skeptical organization founded by Kennedy—has reported a different experience.
According to Hooker, the FOIA queue has appeared to move faster for his organization than it has for other requesters. He noted that a request submitted in March 2025 was fulfilled by December—a turnaround time that is significantly faster than the year-long delays experienced by mainstream outlets. Hooker claims he is now emboldened to request even more detailed information, arguing that the administration should be capable of greater voluntary disclosure. However, he stopped short of offering the administration a "pass," noting that he expects more from a government that claimed it would lead with transparency.
Implications for Public Health and Democracy
The implications of this culture of opacity are profound. HHS manages the most sensitive data in the nation, from pandemic preparedness and vaccine safety to the multi-trillion-dollar Medicare and Medicaid systems. When the gatekeepers of this data operate in the shadows, it erodes the public’s ability to verify the science and the financial integrity of the health system.
The ongoing litigation against HHS suggests that the battle for transparency will continue to play out in the courtroom. However, for a department that oversees the nation’s health, the damage to public trust may be more difficult to reverse than any legal decision. If the Secretary of Health and Human Services continues to treat public information as a private asset—to be released only to friends or withheld from critics—the "radical transparency" he once championed will ultimately be remembered as one of the most significant broken promises in the history of the department.
As the agency continues to shrink its staff, hide its calendars, and ignore the legal requirements of the Freedom of Information Act, it leaves the public with a single, troubling question: If the government has nothing to hide, why is it working so hard to ensure that no one can see it?
