Elizabeth Warren grills Jay Powell & Scott Gottlieb on Vaccine Future 6/26/25
42:21 Share

As America's leading business lender, Bank of America is on your corner and in your corner. With $215 billion in business loans and over 3,700 business specialists across the nation, we help businesses thrive so communities prosper. What would you like the power to do? Learn more at bankofamerica.com slash localbusiness. Bank of America, official bank of FIFA Club World Cup 2025. Copyright 2025 Bank of America Corporation. All rights reserved.

Close your eyes, exhale, feel your body relax and let go of whatever you're carrying today.

Well, I'm letting go of the worry that I wouldn't get my new contacts in time for this class. I got them delivered free from 1-800-CONTACTS. Oh my gosh, they're so fast. And breathe. Oh, sorry. I almost couldn't breathe when I saw the discount they gave me on my first order. Oh, sorry. Namaste. Visit 1-800-CONTACTS.com today to save on your first order. 1-800-CONTACTS. Bring in show music, please.

Today on SquawkPod, Senator Elizabeth Warren. You don't have to push me. I believe in markets. I love markets. I think markets are fabulous when they're honest markets. We need markets with rules. Markets without rules are just theft.

Her perspective on President Trump's critique of Fed Chair Jay Powell and on President Trump's economic policy. I still want to see the interest rates come down. I think they should lower. It is harder than it would be if Donald Trump were not out there creating this kind of economic chaos.

And as RFK Jr.'s new vaccine advisory panel to the CDC continues its first meeting, former FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb explains the weight on their shoulders and what's at stake for the country. Look, these are individuals who've been unabashed about their anti-vaccine views, for the most part, the members who've been appointed. All of them? Most of them.

Plus, could crypto mortgages be in our future? And negotiations on the table for President Trump's 60 Minutes lawsuit against Paramount. FCC Chairman Brendan Carr has said that the third-party complaint about the interview's edit could factor into that agency's review of the Paramount-Skydance merger. I'm CNBC producer Zach Valisi. It's Thursday, June 26th. SquawkPod begins right now.

Stand back you by in three, two, one, cue please.

Good morning, everybody. Welcome to Squawk Box here on CNBC. We're live from the Nasdaq market site in Times Square. I'm Becky Quick, along with Joe Kernan. Andrew is out today. Yesterday was a mixed day for the market. You saw the Dow down slightly, the S&P basically flat. The Nasdaq was higher. The Nasdaq 100 climbed to another record high yesterday. It's now up more than 4% for the month of June. And if you're wondering what's powering all that,

Take a look at the companies closing at record highs in yesterday's session. NVIDIA back at a record high. And by the way, it is now the most valuable company once again, reclaiming that spot after January. Remember, in January, the stock dipped pretty deeply after those reports of deep seek. And China wonders what was when people wondering what was going to happen with that. Well, now it's back on top.

Cisco, IBM, Netflix, Broadcom, Microsoft, Oracle and Palantir all closing at record highs yesterday. You got elected by one person. He doesn't want you to be in that job. And you are costing this government $400 billion a year by refusing to lower interest rates. Nobody in this chamber has that kind of power to have a $400 billion impact on this economy.

We will balance our maximum employment and price stability mandates, keeping in mind that without price stability, we cannot achieve the long periods of strong labor market conditions that benefit all Americans. For the time being, we are well positioned to wait to learn more about the likely course of the economy before considering any adjustments to our policy rate. And a new report from The Wall Street Journal says President Trump considering naming the next Fed chair as soon as this summer.

It is this summer. The report says that Trump's ire with Jay Powell is stepping up the timeline. Naming a new chair would allow Powell's successor to influence investor expectations about the likely path for rates and attempt to steer monetary policy before his term ends in May. The report says Trump is considering these people, former Fed Governor Kevin Warsh and

NEC Director Kevin Hassett. Other contenders include Treasury Secretary Scott Besson, Economist David Malpass, friend of the show, and Fed Governor Christopher Waller. - Most of them are friends of the show. - Yeah, most of them. - If you look through that list, in fact, all of them. - That's right. Waller, have we?

Yeah, we had him on Friday. Friday, yeah. So everybody's been on. I wanted to talk to him. Let me just talk to Steve. Maybe he'll be on. Pass it, certainly. And Treasury Secretary Besson, here's what the president said at the NATO summit yesterday about the next Fed chair. I know...

within three or four people who are going to pick. I mean, he goes out pretty soon, unfortunately, because I think he's terrible. The dollar continuing to slide. It's down about 10 percent this year. By the way, watching Powell's testimony over the last couple of sessions, I mean, he comports himself with with grace, with dignity. I have

I have to say, you know, he may not be doing what the president wants, but he's doing what he thinks is best right now. And I don't, you know, to have the president saying this. I think he's gotten more. I think it's getting to him. I think he's gotten more dovish. I think he's at least thrown. Not really. What he said the last two days before Congress. Rightfully so, he's gotten more dovish.

Right. Just the idea that he's more open to the idea of cutting. That's certainly what he's done over the last couple of days. It happened the other time where I don't know whether Trump was right based on anything other than he likes low interest rates and he's a real estate guy. But eventually...

you know, if you wait long enough, obviously, the rates go up, rates come down. But Trump could have said I was right last time, and he probably is going to be in a position to say it again this time. Maybe not. Probably the frustration point is that Jay Powell said pretty publicly at these hearings over the last couple of days that he would cut rates right now if it weren't for the questions about what's going to happen from potential inflation from the tariffs. That's the whole key, but we've been waiting, waiting, waiting, waiting, waiting, and oil's back down to 64%.

And we'll see whether it's just like for three days. I know, but you understand why they want to wait and see what happens. Only because he got so butthurt by staying easy for too long. They're so worried about and they're so phobic about. You watch him and I've been impressed with the grace that he has made. I don't really look at his grace. I kind of look as sort of he could end up being right. But if he's not, it looks like at this point he's fine.

hearing the criticism and maybe even resisting people like Waller or Austin Goolsbee when maybe he shouldn't be. That's where political pressure can work in a counter pressure where he can't possibly. Right, because he doesn't want to look like he's caving just because of the political pressure. Right, but when he said last time, hey, look, okay, I admit that inflation numbers

have been lower than we thought in the tariff effects. We haven't really seen what many people thought we would have seen by now. We still expect them to come, so I'm still hesitant to cut, but I do acknowledge that if we look through those, cuts could be appropriate. If you talk to retailers, and again, maybe they're talking in their book too, but if you talk to retailers, they will say that...

prices are going to have to go up at some point, that they're doing everything they can behind the scenes to keep them down. But at some point it's got to... Is it inflation? If it's a one-time move? Waller said it's one time and who knows? But, you know, the 90-day pauses and stuff that if we don't do deals...

And he and the president does say, OK, we're back on and start bringing some of these high tariff numbers back or, you know, threatening that that could happen. People thought that they were going to have a much bigger impact if they were as bad as he on inflation and on trade. Right.

Mediator is proposing that President Trump and Paramount Global settle a pending lawsuit. Settle it for $20 million. This is the Wall Street Journal reporting this. President Trump sued the company over a 60 Minutes interview on CBS with former Vice President Kamala Harris, accusing the network of editing the footage to make her sound better.

Trump's team has said at once an apology and has been pushing for $25 million. The Journal reports that Paramount doesn't want to apologize and is offering $15 million to settle the suit. But FCC Chairman Brendan Carr has said that the third-party complaint about the interview's edit could factor into that agency's review of the Paramount-Skydance merger.

Five million, a little difference and a little, I'm sorry, if you get the deal done. I don't know. Andrew would be having a heart attack about the lawyers. It's weird for the FTC chairman to say that this is going to factor into it. Right. It's, you know, we suspected that before, but to actually say it is like. You can make a case for it, though, on normal grounds that. That you shouldn't be allowed to complete a merger because we don't like something you did. You should clean up your act.

If you want to if you want to. I mean, this what that was. That wasn't the only one. You remember Leslie Stahl when she said we know the laptop was out. The president sued them in that case can go forward in the courts and figure out what you want to do with that. But to say, you know, I have a merger because I don't like something. So you say it out loud versus knowing that it's probably de facto. What's yeah. To make it normal and say that this is the way things work. That's not great.

To normalize the idea of, if I don't like this, we're not going to do it. Same goes with Harvard and Columbia and everything else. Just to imply that it's one thing, but when, in fact, it's after years and years and years of what I think is inexcusable behavior and hiring and admittance and everything else. Yeah, I know. It's just that we like to think that these agencies are... I guess...

We know they aren't if you look at some of the agencies and how they've been... They're political appointees that lead these agencies. And you watch what the swings have been with the FTC. I don't think it's about just free speech, though. I think it's about unfair...

oh that's what i mean this is it's not about free speech it's about i don't like the way you're reporting it what i'm saying is i don't think that the 60 minutes is that they're arguing they should have had free speech i think they were doing behavior that shouldn't be allowed in in terms of of the way you present especially during an election the way you're presenting information but 60 minutes that's that's their yeah it's their i mean that's their they they in their dna

I could say there's a lot of different organizations that have DNA that goes one way or the other. All mainstream media. Yeah, all mainstream media. One way or another.

The Federal Housing Finance Agency taking a landmark step to recognize cryptocurrency. It's directing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to formally consider crypto assets and single family mortgage loan risk assessments. Those home finance giants have to now develop proposals, including on digital assets, without requiring borrowers to liquidate them into U.S. dollars before they'll have that loan close.

Crypto has historically been excluded from underwriting frameworks because of the volatility, regulatory uncertainty, and the inability to easily verify holdings. But as we heard yesterday from Philippe Lafont, the volatility is basically in line with the Nasdaq at this point, at least as of April of this year. Regulatory structures are coming into play, and hopefully you can make it easier to prove your holdings as well. Yeah.

Speaking of Philippa Fonda, I saw some people on Twitter. Who is he? You're acting like this guy is a second coming. Who is this guy? I've never heard of him. Started in 1999 with like, I don't know, millions. Now at $55 billion. And across the board with private investment, all kinds of sort of uniquely structured. It was a tiger cub and uniquely structured investments. 12.5% per year if you go...

to the main fund all this time. But in recent years, more like 35, 40, 45% in some of these tech stocks. So he's too young to be a legend. That's why when we said that yesterday. But for people that don't know him, you know,

I mean, I thought it was kind of fascinating where he was talking about how he owns, you know, he's invested in some of Elon Musk's companies and some of Sam Altman's companies and some in Microsoft. And you have all of those titans that are kind of like fighting it out right now about different things and who's going to be on top of it. Tease will be next.

Next on Squawk Pod, Senator Elizabeth Warren weighs in on the critiques of Fed Chair Jay Powell and on America's economic future. I want to see those interest rates come down, but it's Donald Trump who's standing in the way of getting them down by creating more economic chaos.

Because Chairman Powell said that they would have lowered interest rates back in February, but for the chaos caused by Donald Trump's tariff announcements. We'll be right back.

How will you shape the future of banking with confidence? Industry consolidation, crypto, the rise of fintechs, all create a complex landscape for banks to innovate and grow. EY provides domain-led insights to navigate today's fragmented banking sector. So whether you're tackling regulatory complexities, integrating digital assets, or seizing M&A opportunities, EY sees your business from every angle, working together to deliver outcomes that create strategic value.

EY, shape the future with confidence.

This episode is brought to you by Schwab Market Update, an original podcast from Charles Schwab. Join host Keith Lansford for this information-packed daily market preview delivered in 10 minutes or less, including projected stock updates, monetary policy decisions, and key results and statistics that may impact your trading. Download the latest episode and subscribe at schwab.com slash market update podcast or find Schwab Market Update wherever you get your podcasts.

♪

On WhatsApp, no one can see or hear your personal messages, whether it's a voice call, message, or sending a password. To WhatsApp, it's all just this. So whether you're sharing the streaming password in the family chat or trading those late-night voice messages that could basically become a podcast, your personal messages stay between you, your friends, and your family. No one else. Not even us. WhatsApp. Message privately.

This is SquawkPod. Stand by, Joe. Here's Mike. You're watching SquawkPod on CNBC. I'm Joe Kernan along with Becky Quick. Andrew is off today. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. So, Chair Powell, if certain policies would materially drive up the national debt and increase the debt-to-GDP ratio over time...

Could that make it more likely that we would see inflation, all else being equal? I mean, theoretically, sure, fiscal policy can add to inflation. But that's, again, that's really not something we comment on. We try to stay away from fiscal policy. I understand you don't comment on it, but I do appreciate your acknowledgement of the math here.

Fed Chair Jay Powell faced two days of grilling on Capitol Hill yesterday. Senator Elizabeth Warren asked why the Fed's inflation forecast is now higher than it was just six months ago. Senator Warren joins us this morning. She's the lead Democrat on the Banking Committee. And, Senator, thank you for being with us this morning. Happy to be with you.

Why don't we get at your line of questioning from yesterday? You were really getting at this idea of where inflation targets for the Fed are headed. What's your thought behind that? What did you think of the answer you got?

So I just want to make sure everyone knows what the numbers were that the Fed put out. The Fed changed its prediction from inflation this year at 2.5 percent to 3.1 percent. It changed its prediction on unemployment, not a lot, but from 4.3 percent to 4.5 percent.

and most significantly changed its prediction on GDP growth from 2.1 to 1.4. Pretty significant downgrade. So I asked Chairman Powell, what happened? And the answer from Chairman Powell was the Trump tariffs. And I read that as it's the Trump tariffs, it's the Trump chaos, right?

And that's the problem we've got right now. I want to see those interest rates come down, but it's Donald Trump who's standing in the way of getting them down by creating more economic chaos. And how do we know that? Because Chairman Powell said that they would have lowered interest rates back in February, but for the chaos caused by Donald Trump's tariff announcements.

You know, Senator Warren, I understand your concerns around this. And certainly there are a lot of economists who look at this and worry about what happens, the impacts that we have yet to see from the tariffs. They haven't materialized yet.

But I don't think you always think that Jay Powell is the expert on these things. I mean, I think back to 2022 when you were very concerned about what Powell was doing at that point, the Federal Reserve raising rates, thinking that, hey, it's an ineffective cure, I think were your words, in terms of higher rates being able to end inflation. Yep.

And that's where I've been all along. I want to see the interest rates come down. And think about why. Because those interest rates come down. If they don't, that means families are paying more on their mortgages. They're paying more on their car loans. They're paying more on their credit cards. Those high interest rates are keeping costs up for

for families. For three years now, I've been pushing to try to get those interest rates down. And Powell now says, I would have lowered them, he said, in February, but the Trump chaos has now changed the economic outlook. And the Fed's data do show that the economic outlook has shifted.

I guess my point is, though, you agree with Chairman Powell on these issues or you think he should go ahead and cut rates anyway? Because that's what the president thinks. Look, I still want to see the interest rates come down. I think they should lower. I want to see those interest rates come down.

I do understand that conditions have changed and that Chair Powell says it is now harder to lower the interest rates than it would have been earlier. It is harder than it would be

If Donald Trump were not out there creating this kind of economic chaos. And, you know, I just want to push back when you say there haven't been any effects from Donald Trump's announcements about the tariffs. Of course, there have been. I'm sorry, the inflationary. We haven't seen the inflationary effects that people have been predicting pretty widely. We just haven't seen them show up yet. And.

But what we are seeing is that all across the country, people are saying, whoa, I'm not going to start breaking ground on a new factory. I'm not going to buy a whole lot of expensive new equipment. I'm not going to bring in new workers to train up a workforce for new product lines.

I'm not going to start a new business because I can't figure out in the most fundamental way whether or not materials that I have to import are going to be cut at one price or going to have a big, big tariff put on them. And I can't figure out on things I want to export whether or not there's going to be a reciprocal tariff on them. And as a result, what we get is an enormous amount of

of holding back. And I think that's why you see the shift in the GDP projections. That's a shrinking of the economy that we're experiencing now because independently across this country, big companies and small companies are saying, man, I'm not taking a risk. I'm not making a big investment into that kind of an uncertainty. And who is causing all that? One person, Donald Trump.

We're going to get a GDP number, I think, today. And when you say shrinking, you don't mean the economy shrinking. You mean that the rate of the rate of growth. I'm sorry. You said it. I know that.

You, Senator, and a lot of Democrats really don't like this, this bill, the big, beautiful bill. And in fact, there's schisms even in the Republican Party that you hear. A lot of it has to do with spending by the federal government. And here's where I want to ask you just a philosophical question. And I'm going to it won't take me that long. I'm going to stop and then I'm going to let you answer. But back in prior to the pandemic, I.

I guess we were spending 25% less than we're spending now. And in 2024, I think it was $7 trillion. So as a percentage of GDP, it's now 24%.

of GDP federal spending versus 20% in 2019. You would like to increase revenues through taxes on the wealthy, maybe not extending the Bush, I'm sorry, the Trump tax cuts. We had Bush tax cuts too, that I always used to say.

Yeah. Would you if you did get a lot of of growth in revenue that you would like to do with all these different ways, would you use that for for just more government spending at 24 percent of GDP? Or would you say, you know what, let's at least freeze federal spending or or even cut federal spending to get it back down to 20 percent of GDP? Would that ever be possible? So let me start with where we should make cuts.

You may remember back in January when Elon Musk was going to head up Doge, I sent him a letter and I said, here's $2 billion that you can do, $2 trillion that you can do in cuts right now. It's make the right cuts. And what were those cuts? How about we stop the fraud around Medicare Advantage?

That would be about $850 billion that we could save. How about if we change how Defense Department does a lot of its spending and its acquisition? We can save hundreds of billions of dollars there. And I went through a list. The list had about 30 items on it and said, here are places that we could cut spending by $2 trillion. I'm totally in favor of that. But let's

But let me do the other half as well. There are places where we spend money that actually help grow this economy. Right now, the United States is 35th out of the 37 richest nations in the world, 35th on what we spend on child care. And the consequence of our underspending and not making child care available is that a lot of mamas and daddies,

either struggle to find that childcare and get to work or don't work at all. If we spent more money on childcare, we would increase productivity in this country. We'd have more mamas and daddies at work. We'd have our babies well taken care of, and we could pay a living wage to the childcare workers who do this critical work and who could really turn that into a sustainable business model.

there's an investment that you can use to grow GDP. So for me, it's about budgets. Sure, they're about numbers, but they're about values. Do you really think that we ought to be continuing to spend money on defense acquisition that is just incredibly wasteful?

Or do you think, as the Republicans do, we should stop spending money on health care for 16 million Americans? That's what the Republicans want to do. Do you think, as the Republicans do, we should do trillions of dollars in tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires? Or do you think...

that we should make those investments in our families here in the United States. And I think child care is a perfect example of a place where we should be spending more. We've got places we should spend less. But no matter what, the billionaires ought to be paying their fair share.

of another good one for you. And I will do it the same way. I'll finish and then I'll let you completely answer. So you've heard about soul searching in the Democratic Party, a lot of hand-wringing with what we've seen since the election. In the Democratic circles as well, the term "lost in the wilderness" comes to mind.

I don't know whether we had a primary election for the mayor in New York yesterday, Senator, two days ago. A candidate, Mamdami, is a self-proclaimed socialist advocated for defunding the police, globalizing the intifada.

We have Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez leading the field for 2028. I'm just wondering whether, well, A, did you speak out for or against the Merrill candidate? Did you congratulate him? And do you think this is the best strategy for your party right now to lurch even further to the far left after what happened in the last election?

You know, I think you're wrong on the whole defund the police and all, but look, I know that this is something that conservatives want to keep raising over and over. But I want to make a different point here. I think you misunderstand what his campaign was all about. His campaign was saying, I want to invest in New York City. I want to invest in people being able to have good jobs here, to put their kids in school and to build housing.

And he built a grassroots campaign. He didn't have a billionaire who came in and funded him. He didn't say, I'm going to make this a great place for billionaires to live. He said, I'm going to try as hard as I can to make New York City a place that works better for your family. And you know what? New Yorkers heard him. They believed him. They were inspired by him. And I

And I think that's exactly what we should be doing. We should be, as the Democratic Party, the party that makes it clear that we are here for working families. We want to reduce the cost of housing. We want childcare. We want our kids to be able to get a good education. The Republicans right now, with this tax bill that they're trying to push through, are really showing the contrast.

They think they should be able to pay for tax giveaways to billionaires by taking away health care from 16 million Americans. They don't want to make investments in child care. They don't want to make investments in housing. They want to take away clean energy credits, which will drive up the cost of utilities for families all across this country.

There is nothing in this Republican proposal that's about centering families and trying to make this economy work for them instead of for a handful of billionaires. And I think that's a pretty good place for the Democratic Party to go. Senator, just back to Mamdani. He has some pretty argumentative views that a lot of people have disagreed with. There is some old footage of him saying that if Benjamin Netanyahu were to arrive in New York City, he'd have him arrested. Do you agree with that?

Look, I can't speak for him. I can only speak for myself. No, I'm asking for you. Yeah, and what I'm saying is the key that we talk about and need to keep talking about is the economy for American families. And that, in my view, is exactly what this race was about. But what are your thoughts on Netanyahu? Because these are some of the feelings that...

What happens, though, what is happening, though, is that families is that families across this country are struggling. And the response of the Republicans right now in Congress, we will be voting today. The response of the Republicans is let's take health care away from 16 million Americans so they can do tax giveaways to billionaires. They're telling us we've got to get out American values.

Now I have to interrupt. Now I'm doing what I said I wasn't going to do. But Senator, we don't have a lot of time. Do you think he's a socialist? He's a self-avowed socialist. Do you think socialism is the correct path to do what you just said you wanted to do for working Americans? Do you do? I mean, that's what he is. Let's just talk about.

And we're the center of the universe for capitalism in New York City and Wall Street, whether you love it or hate it. I know it has a, you know, a connotation in certain areas, but it's the financial engine for all the great things that happen in the U.S. in terms of the private sector and raising money for companies and the stock market. All these great things that provide all the jobs.

That's where you get the tax money to spend on all these great things you want to spend it on. You think that's the right thing for New York City? You don't have to push me. I believe in markets. I love markets. I think markets are fabulous when they're honest markets. As you know, because we've had these discussions before. For example, we need markets with rules. Markets without rules are just theft.

And that's part of why we need strong antitrust enforcement. But what our new mayor, I hope will be mayor elect in New York City, is talking about is how to make that economy work for families. We're

Where is your outrage over a Republican Party that is saying we want to fund even more tax giveaways to billionaires? We want to make sure that Meta gets a check if this bill passes for $15 billion, not for anything they do in the future, but for investments they made three years ago. We want to give them a check for $15 billion.

while we take away health care from everyone else, while we drive up utility costs for everyone else. That's not how we build a strong economy. You believe in markets, then you should believe in participation by the employees so that they get some of the wealth that they help create. And part of that means that through government,

We create opportunities not just for the billionaires to be able to come in and help build these buildings, but also to the workers who help build them as well. That's what this whole fight is about. I want to thank you for joining us this morning, Senator. We appreciate it. Thank you.

Next on SquawkPod, the vaccine priorities of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. His Rebuilt from Scratch Immunization Advisory Panel is meeting. And former FDA Commissioner Dr. Scott Gottlieb says watch the recommendations of this group closely. This is going to be a very long cycle. We've now built a lot of anti-vaccine sentiment. Secretary Kennedy is fueling that. The consequences of this are going to be felt for years.

Trading at Schwab is now powered by Ameritrade. Unlocking the power of Thinkorswim, the award-winning trading platforms loaded with features that let you dive deeper into the market. Visualize your trades in a new light on Thinkorswim desktop with robust charting and analysis tools, all while you uncover new opportunities with up-to-the-minute market news and insights. Thinkorswim is available on desktop, web, and mobile to meet you where you are. It's built by the trading obsessed to help you trade brilliantly.

Learn more at Schwab.com slash trading. Close your eyes, exhale, feel your body relax and let go of whatever you're carrying today.

Welcome back to SquawkPod. Good morning.

I'm Dr. Martin Kulldorff, the Chair of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, and I'm pleased to call today's ACIP meeting to order.

The new members of the CDC Federal Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices will continue their first meeting later today. This group includes seven new appointed members, all put in place by the new Health and Human Services Secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who fired the previous panel of 17. Yesterday, the committee focused on childhood vaccines.

But it's the unusual makeup and norm-shattering organization of this group by the secretary that is capturing attention. Their recommendations influence the official immunization schedule in the U.S., potential insurance coverage for vaccines, even the procurement of shots for children in need. The panel continues meeting today. And with more, I'll send it back to Becky Quick.

And joining us now ahead of day two is former FDA Commissioner Dr. Scott Gottlieb, who served in the first Trump administration. He's a board member with Pfizer and Illumina and a CNBC contributor. And Dr. Gottlieb, thanks for being here. Thanks a lot. So walk us through what this means. There was a lot of fanfare when Robert F. Kennedy Jr. fired basically the 17 people who had been on that vaccine panel before.

There are seven new members. What are we in for today? Well, there was eight, but one dropped out because they didn't want to sell his stock, so he couldn't get through the conflicts check. Look, these are individuals who've been unabashed about their anti-vaccine views, for the most part, the members who've been appointed. All of them? Most of them. I mean, the ones who aren't

you know, sort of considered anti-vaxxers, I think, have been skeptical, at least of the COVID vaccine. They deferred a lot of the decisions, the controversial decisions from day one to day two. So I think day two is when we're going to see some of those sentiments become manifest. And the two places they're focusing, I think, today is on the MMR vaccine, which is the measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella vaccine. So it's a combined chickenpox MMR vaccine, which has long been a bugaboo of the anti-vax movement because there's a small risk of seizures there.

That risk can be fully mitigated if parents check the temperature of children between day 5 and 14 and treat any fever above 100.5. There's sort of a delayed febrile reaction to that vaccine. Only about 10% of kids get it. 10% of kids get it? But anti-vaxxers have wanted to bring this off the market. The other issue that's going to come up today is thimerosal, which is a preservative.

that used to be used in vaccines it was largely taken out this was because i didn't think it was there right so this happened when i was at fda in the early 2000s we pulled thimerosal out of the vaccines and moved from multi-dose vials where the preservative was to single dose files that didn't need a preservative largely because not because we thought thimerosal was unsafe but because there was so much speculation among the anti-vax movement that it was linked to autism

We felt we would never get out from under that cloud, so we reformulated those vaccines. But it's still in about 4% of vaccines that get delivered in flu vaccines, mostly for adults. Most children do not receive a vaccine from the multi-dose vial, but certain clinics still use that multi-dose vial, about 4% of the administered vaccines. They want to withdraw that from the market as well.

The other issue that's going to come up, but I think it's been largely deferred to a subsequent meeting, is that there is a movement among the Secretary Kennedy and others in the anti-vax movement to take alum out of vaccines. So alum is an aluminum salt. It's used in about seven different pediatric vaccines, including one by Pfizer as an adjuvant. So it helps stimulate an immune response.

So they want to force manufacturers, I believe, to reformulate those vaccines. That would be a major issue because this is a very safe ingredient. It's been used for 70 years. There's really no alternative. And if they force manufacturers to have to reformulate all those pediatric vaccines, I think you'd see a lot of vaccines potentially come off the market because there is no good alternative. Meaning that they would no longer be effective. They wouldn't stimulate the immune system. There is no good. The other adjuvants you could potentially use probably aren't as safe.

But if you had to reformulate those vaccines, it would create a real dislocation in the market. That was supposed to be on the agenda for this meeting. They took it off. So I think they've deferred that discussion by and large. But I would expect it could come up today as well as a prelude to future meetings.

So the MMR and varicella, the idea of treating a fever. First of all, I'll say I didn't realize that 10% of kids get a seizure reaction or a fever reaction. No, so 10% of kids get the MMR vaccine. So most kids who get vaccinated for measles, mumps, and rubella get the MMR vaccine and a separate varicella vaccine, largely because there is this small risk of febrile seizure associated with the combined vaccine.

That risk, again, can be fully mitigated. Most parents wouldn't know to check temperature five to 14 days out. I was just going to say, having four kids, I've never heard that. It's a delayed febrile reaction. That's why some kids get in trouble because you get a fever day 10, it doesn't get recognized, doesn't get treated, and then you can get into trouble. So the...

People in Kennedy's orbit have wanted to pull this vaccine off the market. It is on the agenda today. So I think they're either going to vote... If they pull it off the market, though, you would still be able to get those two vaccines separately, MMR and Varicella. Yeah, I think, you know,

So if you take a step back, look, if they pull the MMR vaccine, it's not going to have a dramatic impact on availability of vaccines. If they pull the multidose vial of the flu vaccine, like I said, it's only 4% of people who get that. But I think this is a prelude to them demonstrating their ability to go in with this committee now, make recommendations to pull some of these vaccines and force those decisions. And if they're able to do that here, it's setting up a decision around alum.

OK, I would say the ones you told me about today don't concern me as much because you'd be able to get those shots separately. I mean, I guess if you've got a five-year-old and you don't want to give them all the shots that you're supposed to be getting, you'd have to take two for the varicella without. It's the precedent because it's the idea of ACIP unilaterally acting to do this. These are typically decisions that would have been left to regulators to determine the safety and effectiveness. ACIP has the capacity to make recommendations about who should and shouldn't get these vaccines.

But the fact that they're wading into these issues that have long been considered settled science, particularly thimerosal. And remember, back in the early 2000s, the bugaboo was that thimerosal was linked to autism. We took thimerosal out of the vaccines. Everything for children. Now they've moved to alum. So now the arguments are, well, it must be the aluminum hydroxide. So they're just going to keep chipping away.

what's in the vaccines to say this is what causes autism. That's what's been created over the last 10, 15 years is you just move from one issue to the next and never get in front of this. I wonder what you think. I mean, there was a...

Tyler Winklevoss had a post today on X, or maybe it was last night. It was related to... It was related to... How do you follow your Bitcoin rules? What's happening in New York City with the mayor. And it's a strange thing for me to see the connection between the two. But he basically says, look, you have all of these young voters who don't realize what happens. They don't remember the crime in the cities in the 1980s and, you know, the squeegee guys and what happened before...

you had the crackdown on some of these things. So he thinks it's a bad idea for this mayor to get elected, but he says maybe it's what they need to see, a little bit of socialism to see what the outcome is and what that might mean for safety on the streets. And I wonder if it's the same story with vaccines. People forget what it was like to have measles run rampant. People forget what it was like, even chickenpox, which you can survive. I mean, I had chickenpox as a kid. It's a bad disease. It's a bad disease. You don't want to see...

all of these childhood diseases that we have forgotten what they do. Yeah, you certainly don't want to see that happen, that there is a backlash to this anti-vax movement because we've seen the consequences of it, because a lot of people are going to be harmed in the process. But the problem is that these...

You know, these sort of sentiments are have been fueled over a long period of time, certainly accelerated during covid. The mandates, I think, fueled a lot of the anti-vaccine backlash. And by the way, I remember you saying this during covid that you worried the way the administration was going about it at the time. Well, I was against the mandates. You were against the mandate for this reason. We said it on this show that it would fuel an anti-vaccine backlash. And I think that was a tipping point of sorts.

But the problem is this is going to be a very long cycle. We've now built a lot of anti-vaccine sentiment. Secretary Kennedy is fueling that with what he's doing in groups like the ACIP that he's constituted. The consequences of this are going to be felt for years. They're going to grow over time. We've seen MMR vaccination rates sharply declining. More than 50 percent of states are well below herd immunity. There was just a survey put out. Some states are below 70 percent. So they're going to have potentially outbreaks. So

So you are setting up a lot of risk for the future. Outbreaks for what? Measles. Measles. That's the one we worry about the most because it's so contagious and vaccination rates are falling. You don't want to see a situation where we learn our lessons from what's happening right now in five years as a result of outbreaks where kids were harmed. I hope that's not the case.

The Secretary himself, Secretary Kennedy, has said that the reason he is making these changes and wants to see them is that there is so much

so many questions about vaccines he wants to be in his words i think or his pair to paraphrase his words he wants to open things up and make sure that both sides are being explored do you think that's what's happening here look he's been a motivated anti-vaxxer i think he's been unabashed about this and one of his close advisors said when he gets the keys to the kingdom and those are the words he's not going to back away from his positions he's been hardened in these views

I think he's setting up a litigation enterprise. I think that's what this is about. There's two members of the adcom who both served as expert witnesses in litigation against Merck, didn't disclose that as a potential conflict. We know the secretary had an interest in ongoing litigation in the Gardasil.

vaccine that he gifted to his son. So there's a very vast litigation enterprise. And if you start pulling out ingredients like thimerosal and alum, and it's sort of an official sanction given to that, I think what he's setting up is to declare in his autism report in the fall that there's a link between alum and autism. I think that's where this is heading, if I was to make a prediction. If he does that, that will open the door to litigation under the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program and create a whole wave of

lawsuits that I think will drive a lot of vaccine makers out of the market. You could see companies... But he won't even stop them from doing it. He will do it through the lawsuits and that will make the companies say, forget it. Well, he's always seen litigation as a tool to try to achieve his objectives. You could see companies, you know, people say, can the companies get out of the manufacturing of vaccines? They can certainly spin it out. And at a time when every other nation is trying to build up its vaccine enterprise and sees it as a national security imperative, we're dismantling ours in this country.

Dr. Gottlieb, thank you. Thanks a lot. That's the pod for today. Thanks for listening. Squawk Box is hosted by Joe Kernan, Becky Quick, and Andrew Ross Sorkin. Tune in weekday mornings on CNBC at 6 Eastern. To get the smartest takes and analysis from our TV show right into your ears, follow Squawk Pod wherever you get your podcasts. We'll meet you back here tomorrow. All right, clear. Thanks, guys.

Trading at Schwab is now powered by Ameritrade. Unlocking the power of Thinkorswim, the award-winning trading platforms loaded with features that let you dive deeper into the market. Visualize your trades in a new light on Thinkorswim desktop with robust charting and analysis tools, all while you uncover new opportunities with up-to-the-minute market news and insights. Thinkorswim is available on desktop, web, and mobile to meet you where you are. It's built by the trading obsessed to help you trade brilliantly.

Learn more at Schwab.com slash trading.