Why oppose Nesheiwat for surgeon general?
President-elect Trump has nominated Dr. Janette Nesheiwat for Surgeon General of the United States. But she was an early supporter of censorship of Americans during the COVID pandemic, applauding social media for policing speech during a critical time in a public health emergency.
The First Amendment to our U.S. Constitution, which protects free speech and freedom of the press, was made for times of crisis when our country could be threatened by tyranny. Nesheiwat has shown she does not support the First Amendment and is therefore a danger to the American people and our Constitution. It is impossible to have informed consent and censorship at the same time. Nesheiwat herself supported health policies that harmed Americans and our children, while calling to silence voices that shared opinions she later adopted for herself.
What is a surgeon general?
The U.S. Surgeon General is referred to as the “nation’s doctor.” According to the Health and Human Services (HHS) website, this means the person is tasked with “providing Americans with the best scientific information available on how to improve their health and reduce the risk of illness and injury.”
The surgeon general is the advisor to the Secretary of HHS, and is also the spokesperson for public health on the national stage. Before the 1970s, the role was much more administrative, but during a big restructuring of public health offices in the federal government that took place largely in the 1970s, the role was shifted to being “more proactive in informing the American public on health matters.”
By and large, the Office of the Surgeon General has been under the radar. But this doesn’t mean the role has no effect on policy. In fact, arguably one of the most influential pieces of public health policy has quietly come from the office of the surgeon general, when a report was issued in 1979 titled “Healthy People. The Surgeon General’s Report on Health Promotion and Disease Prevention.”
If the title rings a bell, it’s because that report led to national goals and strategies for U.S. public health policy that are renewed and augmented every 10 years. Today’s iteration is known as “Healthy People 2030.” This national policy has merged with the global United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, tying national health policy to global aspirations.
Notable Surgeon General reports
- 1964: “Smoking and Health” laid the groundwork for state laws limiting smoking in public places, congressional action to mandate warnings on cigarette packages, and laws banning smoking on aircraft or television advertisements.
- 1979: “Healthy People” encouraged a “revolution” in public health thinking from medical cures to prevention with the inclusion of nutrition, exercise, environmental factors, occupational hazards and more to be incorporated into public health decision making.
- 1986: “The Surgeon General’s Report on Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS)” redefined AIDS from catastrophic to chronic and manageable. Among the ripple effects were changes in the way schoolchildren were educated about sexual activity.
- 1999: “Mental Health” scooped the psyche into public health and as federal agencies like the CDC grappled with how mental health fit into their public health mission, we saw an increase in data collection and surveillance of behaviors and social and environmental information. Interestingly, the CDC’s call to include “social determinants of health” in public health policy started at the same time.
- 2024: “Surgeon General’s Advisory on Gun Violence” asserted that gun violence is a public health crisis in America.
Act now to tell your senator to oppose the nomination of Nesheiwat.
It’s dangerous to put someone in this position who supports censorship in uncertain times. Americans need maximum public discourse and opportunity to share information, concerns, and experiences in times where lives are on the line and fear can steer the ship. We will not stand for a Surgeon General who defaults to censorship in a public health emergency. At the very least, this shows a lack of understanding of the value of free speech. It also shows that Nesheiwat elevates “chosen experts” and their opinions over other experts and over the human capacity to make sound decisions.