White House Appoints Jim O’Neill as Acting CDC Director Amidst Leadership Dispute

In a significant leadership change at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the White House has named Jim O’Neill, the deputy secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), as the acting CDC director. This appointment comes amid a public and contentious dispute involving the outgoing CDC Director, Susan Monarez, and HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

The decision was confirmed by a White House official on August 28, 2025, and marks a pivotal moment as the CDC navigates internal challenges and prepares for the future under interim leadership. Jim O’Neill, who served as one of Kennedy Jr.’s top deputies, is expected to steer the agency through this transition period.

Previously, Susan Monarez’s tenure as CDC director became increasingly fraught with tension, culminating in a very public disagreement with Secretary Kennedy. This discord escalated to the point where Monarez protested her firing, drawing attention to the leadership turmoil within the agency.

According to sources close to the administration and reported by The Washington Post initially, O’Neill’s appointment reflects an effort by the White House to restore stability and continuity at the CDC during a complex period. As deputy secretary of HHS, O’Neill has been closely involved in agency operations and is familiar with the strategic priorities set forth by Kennedy’s leadership.

This leadership shuffle at the CDC comes at a critical time when the agency plays a central role in addressing ongoing public health challenges. The White House’s move aims to assure the public and health professionals alike that the CDC remains focused and operational amid internal shifts.

Jim O’Neill’s interim directorship will remain in effect while the White House searches for a permanent replacement, signaling a potential period of adjustment for the agency and its workforce.

Observers note that this development underscores the complexities of leadership within federal health institutions and highlights the sometimes turbulent relationship dynamics at the upper echelons of public health governance.