On Thursday President Donald Trump’s pick to lead the Food and Drug Administration appeared before lawmakers for a crucial Senate confirmation hearing in which she repeatedly distanced herself from the president’s false statements about drugs and vaccines but declined to say the president was ever wrong.

Heidi Overton, a physician who currently serves as a White House health aide, told lawmakers at the hearing that the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine is both safe and effective, as are all other vaccines that are currently recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. When questioned about the abortion drug mifepristone, she said the medication has met FDA safety and efficacy standards. She also said that she has seen no evidence that the use of Tylenol during pregnancy causes autism. All of that puts her at odds with the president.

Still, when asked if she believes it’s possible for the president to be wrong about something, Overton refused to answer directly, saying only that he “sets the policy directions, but he works with all of his advisers to get the best information.”

On supporting science journalism

If you’re enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.

Trump nominated Overton to head up the FDA in August, just a week after she stood behind the president as he signed an executive order aimed at altering the childhood vaccine schedule. That order called for the MMR vaccine to be broken into three separate shots. During the signing ceremony, the president claimed, without evidence, that the vaccine can be “lethal” to children.

During Thursday’s hearing, Overton said the shot remains the best available tool for combating the ongoing measles outbreaks that have been linked to the deaths of at least four Americans so far. Overton also acknowledged the ample evidence showing the combined shot is safe and effective. And she pointed out that no drug company currently produces separate mumps, measles and rubella vaccines for commercial use and that it could be years before any might become available or approved by the FDA.

“Anything new to the market would take time to develop, but that … option was for the president’s decision, and he wanted to provide an option to Americans that, right now, are getting zero vaccinations after COVID,” she said.

As noted, Overton was also asked about the abortion drug mifepristone, which is subject to an ongoing FDA safety review despite more than 100 studies showing the drug is both safe and effective. In 2023 Overton wrote in a policy position for the right-wing America First Policy Institute that the drug is “dangerous to women.”

On Thursday, however, she declined to say what her plans for the drug will be if her nomination is approved. Overton said that the FDA will continue to examine the postmarket safety of all medications.

Overton’s nomination has been criticized by abortion rights groups. In a statement released on Thursday, Reproductive Freedom for All president and CEO Mini Timmaraju said Overton has “one of the most alarming anti-abortion records of any FDA nominee to date and is entirely unfit to serve as a leader in public health.”

“Senators who vote to confirm Overton will be choosing Trump over their own constituents,” Timmaraju said.

Overton laid out one major priority for the FDA if she is approved: cracking down on illicit e-cigarette products. But she defended the agency’s recent decision to approve several flavored vape products, which have been criticized as appealing to minors, saying they can be effective at helping adults to quit cigarettes.

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber