Susan Monarez took the Senate Health Committee’s podium on Wednesday to deliver a forceful opening statement in the first public accounting of her abrupt departure as director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In a videotaped statement released to the committee and media, Monarez said she was removed after resisting political pressure to alter scientific guidance, and she directly accused Robert F. Kennedy Jr. of orchestrating her ouster.

“I was pushed out for defending science, not politics,” Monarez said, according to the video. She described a pattern of interference that she said undermined the CDC’s mission to provide impartial, evidence-based recommendations. Monarez’s testimony was the latest in a string of public accounts from former agency officials who say they were dismissed after clashing with political appointees.

Senators pressed Monarez and other witnesses for internal documents and communications that could show whether political directives sought to change public health guidance on issues ranging from vaccination recommendations to outbreak responses. Committee members on both sides of the aisle said the allegations, if substantiated, raise fundamental questions about the independence of the nation’s premier public health agency.

“The CDC must be able to advise the public without fear or favor,” one committee member said during the hearing. Democrats framed the episode as a dangerous politicization of expertise that could erode hard-won trust among communities of color and low-income Americans, groups that have historically been skeptical of medical institutions because of prior injustices. Republicans emphasized the need for accountability and transparency in appointments and removals.

Public health experts outside the hearing said Monarez’s testimony highlights real-world risks beyond bureaucratic infighting. When leadership changes are driven by political considerations rather than scientific judgment, guidance on vaccinations, maternal health, and chronic disease prevention can be delayed or weakened, they said—outcomes that disproportionately harm communities with fewer resources and less access to health care.

“These disputes are not just internal management issues; they have measurable effects on people’s lives,” said a public health researcher who requested anonymity to speak candidly about morale inside federal agencies. “If local health departments can’t rely on consistent federal guidance, their ability to protect high-risk populations is compromised.”

Monarez’s appearance came amid a broader flurry of high-profile Senate activity, including hearings on judicial nominations and other administration controversies. In the health committee, Democrats called for expedited production of records and exploration of statutory protections to shield scientific integrity officers and career scientists from political retaliation.

The White House and representatives for RFK Jr. did not immediately provide a detailed response to Monarez’s charges at the time of the hearing; a brief statement from a spokesman dismissed the testimony as “disputed characterization.” Legal experts on government employment noted the complexity of removing agency heads and the limited remedies available to career staff who claim retaliation.

Still, lawmakers and public health advocates say the stakes extend beyond any single personnel dispute. Restoring the CDC’s credibility, they said, will require not only documents and hearings but also concrete policy changes to ensure that scientific expertise, not political expediency, guides decisions that affect millions—especially the communities that rely most on public health protection.