FDA approved concept. Rubber stamp with FDA and pills on craft paper. 3d illustration
getty
Marty Makary is out as FDA commissioner, and an acting replacement is now leading one of the nation’s most powerful — and least understood — health agencies. Should Americans care? The answer is yes.
The person in that role helps shape decisions that affect millions of lives: the safety of medicines, the credibility of vaccines, the speed of new treatments and the public’s confidence in the systems meant to protect them.
The FDA commissioner’s job is more than regulating industry. It is helping Americans answer a basic question every time they take a medication, receive a vaccine or use a product overseen by the agency: “Can I trust this?”
That’s why changes at the top of the FDA matter far beyond Washington. The issues that defined Makary’s tenure — vaccine policy, teen vaping, abortion medication, accelerated drug approvals and the role of political influence in scientific decisions — are now in the hands of new leadership at a moment when public trust in institutions is already fragile.
Americans often think about the FDA only during moments of crisis: a drug recall, a food contamination outbreak or a heated debate over vaccines. But the agency quietly influences daily life in ways most people never notice. It oversees prescription and over-the-counter medicines, vaccines, medical devices, infant formula, tobacco products and much of the nation’s food supply, as well as veterinary medicine and the safety of cosmetics.
The commissioner does not personally approve every drug or decide every policy. Much of the FDA’s work is carried out by career scientists, physicians, regulatory experts and inspectors who evaluate evidence and apply complex standards developed over decades —for products manufactured in the US and abroad.
But leadership still matters because commissioners shape priorities, determine how decisions are communicated, influence how aggressively the agency acts and set the tone for how scientific disagreements are handled.
That tension became increasingly visible during Makary’s tenure.
Supporters praised some of his efforts to move faster on issues such as food chemicals, rare disease treatments and transparency around failed drug applications. Critics argued that some decisions appeared overly political, insufficiently transparent, inconsistent, or dismissive of established scientific and advisory and regulatory processes.
At different moments, Makary faced criticism from entirely different directions. Some anti-abortion advocates believed the administration was not moving aggressively enough on abortion medication restrictions. Public health advocates and lawmakers questioned the administration’s handling of vaccine policy and scientific review processes. Others argued the FDA was not acting quickly enough to address teen vaping and nicotine products that continue to target young users.
That range of criticism illustrates something important about the FDA commissioner’s role: nearly every major health debate in America eventually lands on the agency’s desk.
And increasingly, those debates are not just scientific. They are political, cultural and economic.
That creates a difficult challenge for any commissioner. Americans want the FDA to move quickly when facing urgent threats or promising medical breakthroughs. But they also want decisions to be careful, evidence-based and insulated from political pressure.
Those goals are not always easy to balance.
Patients with rare diseases often push for faster approvals because delays can mean lost time or lost lives. Public health advocates may want more aggressive regulation of tobacco and nicotine. Pharmaceutical companies want clear and predictable regulatory pathways. Parents want confidence that vaccines and medicines are being evaluated through a credible process. Investors, drug developers and researchers want stability in the rules that govern innovation.
That is why the process behind FDA decisions matters almost as much as the decisions themselves.
Former FDA deputy commissioner Joshua Sharfstein recently argued that durable public trust depends on decisions being supported by transparent processes, scientific review and credible advisory structures — not simply announced from the top down. Even people who disagreed with Makary on specific policies may recognize the broader point: Americans are more likely to trust difficult decisions when they understand how those decisions were made.
That trust becomes especially important in areas where public confidence has already weakened, including vaccines, nicotine regulation and reproductive health.
The FDA’s authority ultimately depends less on enforcement power than on credibility. Families, physicians, researchers and companies need to believe the agency’s decisions are being made consistently, transparently and based on evidence rather than political gains.
No FDA decision will satisfy everyone. Disagreement is inevitable in an agency that regulates products affecting nearly every American household.
But leadership instability can create uncertainty about how decisions are reached, which standards apply and whether long-established processes still matter.
And when uncertainty grows around institutions responsible for public health and safety, the consequences extend well beyond Washington politics.
They affect whether Americans trust vaccines; whether patients feel confident trying new treatments; whether companies continue investing in medical innovation. And whether the public believes the systems designed to protect them are working as intended.
That is why the FDA commissioner matters — regardless of who holds the title.
\