In yet another predictable escalation from the woke left, Democrats have reached for their favorite political weapon: impeachment. This time, the target is Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a longtime critic of Big Pharma and federal overreach, who has become public enemy number one for progressives daring to challenge the medical establishment.
On Wednesday, December 10, Rep. Haley Stevens (D-MI) announced she had introduced articles of impeachment against Kennedy, accusing him of “failing” in his role and endangering public health. The move, heavy on rhetoric and light on substance, reads less like a serious constitutional argument and more like a tantrum from a party furious that one of the most powerful health agencies in the country is no longer marching in lockstep with left-wing orthodoxy.
In a press release, Stevens’ office claimed Kennedy’s leadership has “gutted lifesaving medical research” and endangered Americans. Notably, the effort is backed by Stand Up for Science, a left-wing activist organization that routinely equates dissent from government-approved narratives with heresy. In other words, the same crowd that spent years insisting Americans “trust the science” now wants to impeach a Cabinet secretary for asking uncomfortable questions and challenging entrenched bureaucracies.
Stevens has been gunning for Kennedy for months. She previously demanded his resignation, pushed legislation to reverse research cuts she opposed, and openly admitted in September that she was drafting impeachment articles. Wednesday’s announcement was less a surprise than the inevitable next step in a political vendetta.
In her personal statement, Stevens accused Kennedy of “spreading conspiracies and lies,” a familiar talking point Democrats deploy whenever someone refuses to rubber-stamp pharmaceutical industry priorities or endless federal spending. She went on to claim families are “less safe,” healthcare costs are rising because of Kennedy, and vaccines have been “restricted,” despite little evidence tying those claims directly to his leadership.
What Stevens and her allies really object to is Kennedy’s willingness to question bloated federal health bureaucracies, reexamine how taxpayer dollars are spent, and challenge cozy relationships between regulators and corporate interests. For a Democratic Party deeply intertwined with pharmaceutical donors and activist NGOs, that kind of independence is unforgivable.
The articles of impeachment themselves stretch the definition of “high crimes and misdemeanors” beyond recognition. Rather than alleging corruption, bribery, or criminal conduct, Stevens argues that Kennedy’s policy decisions and leadership style constitute impeachable offenses. In other words, Democrats are once again attempting to criminalize political disagreement.
The filing claims Kennedy abused his authority, undermined public confidence, and violated federal law by failing to fully comply with statutes such as Obamacare and Medicaid regulations. Yet impeachment was never intended to be a tool for punishing Cabinet officials who pursue reforms the opposition dislikes. By that standard, nearly every administration official in modern history would be impeachable the moment power changes hands.
For conservatives, the episode is a reminder of how casually Democrats now weaponize impeachment. After years of abusing the process against President Trump, the left appears eager to normalize impeachment as a routine response to losing policy battles.
RFK Jr. was appointed to shake up a system many Americans no longer trust, and the furious reaction from the political and bureaucratic class suggests he is doing exactly that. Stevens’ impeachment push is unlikely to go anywhere in a divided Congress, but it sends a clear message: challenge the narrative, and the woke left will come for your job.
Rather than addressing skyrocketing healthcare costs, chronic disease, or bureaucratic waste, Democrats are once again focused on silencing a reformer who threatens their grip on power. For millions of Americans skeptical of Washington’s “experts,” that says far more about the accusers than the accused.
