Murphy to RFK Jr.: Why Are Your Parroting Industry Talking Points Instead of Protecting Nursing Home Patients

WASHINGTON - U.S. Senator Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) on Wednesday questioned U.S. Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. during a hearing of the U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee. Highlighting the nursing home industry's multi-million-dollar donations to the Trump campaign, Murphy pressed Kennedy on the Trump administration's indefensible rescission of an HHS rule requiring nursing homes to maintain sufficient staffing to keep vulnerable and elderly patients safe. Murphy also called for Kennedy to shut down MAHA PAC, a pro-RFK Jr. political action committee with deep financial ties to the pharmaceutical industry.

Murphy detailed how dark money interests are driving decision-making at the Department of Health and Human Services, and systematically jeopardizing nursing home patients' health care: "We have an epidemic of low quality care in our nursing homes today, increasingly, because we have a lot of for-profit operators, a lot of private equity-owned nursing homes today. It's a real issue. I hear about it all the time in Connecticut. In 2023, President Biden issues this rule to require minimum staffing in nursing homes. At the beginning of the Trump administration, the administration defends that rule because the industry brought a case against it in court. And then, in the summer of 2025, the industry starts pumping a lot of money into the President's political operation, almost $4 million. They have a meeting with him, and then a couple months later, the Trump administration stops defending the rule."

Murphy grilled Secretary Kennedy for hypocritically carrying water for a corrupt nursing home industry that routinely squeezes their patients: "Why side with the industry here? Why not side with patients and patient advocates who have been asking for just basic minimum staffing ratios in nursing homes to make sure the patients get the care that they need. What's the reason to withdraw support for that rule?"

He debunked Kennedy's industry-friendly talking points: "We have states that already have minimum staffing rules with big rural constituencies, and there's actually no correlation between increasing staffing ratios and closures in rural areas… That's just the argument that's made by the industry in order to avoid industry-wide accountability."

Murphy also demanded answers on Kennedy's corrupt connections to MAHA PAC and Big Pharma: "This is a PAC run by acquaintances and allies of yours. Your face is plastered all over its literature. They advertise that they are in existence to try to influence you. You said in the outset that your entire mission is to try to take on the failing status quo, the industries that have profited off of bad medicine. The companies that donate to MAHA PAC? It's like a who's who of the pharmaceutical industry, including a ton of companies that literally have business before you, and the whole purpose of MAHA PAC seems to be to interact with you and your office… Why do you suspect all of these pharmaceutical companies - and they're not giving small amounts, they're giving $20,000, $100,000 to MAHA - why are they putting all this money into MAHA PAC, if not to try to influence your decision?"

A full transcript of Murphy's exchange with Secretary Kennedy is available below.

Murphy: Thank you, Madame Chair. We have an epidemic of low quality care in our nursing homes today, increasingly because we have a lot of for profit operators, a lot of private equity owned nursing homes today, it's a real issue. I hear about it all the time in Connecticut. In 2023,

President Biden issues this rule to require minimum staffing in nursing homes. At the beginning of the Trump administration, the administration defends that rule because the industry brought a case against it in court, and then in the summer of 2025 the industry starts pumping a lot of money into the President's political operation, almost $4 million. They have a meeting with him, and then a couple months later, the Trump administration stops defending the rule.

I understand you're going to tell us that there's no connection between the donations and the decision to withdraw defense of the rule. But why side with the industry here? Why not side with patients and patient advocates who have been asking for just basic minimum staffing ratios in nursing homes to make sure the patients get the care that they need. What's the reason to withdraw support for that rule?

RFK: I can't tell you whether industry pressure helps weigh President Trump. I know that he doesn't really give a- he doesn't care about industry pressure normally. The real pressure was coming from congressmen and from senators who are in rural areas, and I traveled across rural areas, and I saw the damage that that rule was going to cause in rural areas. A lot of these rural areas, they cannot get people, and they'd have to close the nursing home, and then the elderly parents would be shipped to a city that is hours away and not be near their families. And it was going to be massive, according to what I was being told, and what made sense to me, there was going to be massive closing in rural parts of this country of nursing homes. These are not owned by private equity.

Murphy: Well, that's not true. There are plenty of nursing homes in rural areas that are not necessarily for profit companies. I want to submit for the record a pretty comprehensive study that shows that that industry argument that there will be undue impact on rural areas actually has no basis in fact. Why? Because we have states that already have minimum staffing rules with big rural constituencies, and there's actually no correlation between increasing staffing ratios and closures in rural areas. Do you have any data that shows that there would actually be impact on rural areas? Because that's just the argument that's made by the industry in order to avoid industry wide accountability.

RFK: You know, I'm happy to provide you with what we have.

Murphy: Okay, I don't think the data is there, but I'm happy to take that for the record.

Murphy: Second line of inquiry, Mr. Secretary, this MAHA PAC thing just seems like a moral and ethical mess.

You know, this is a PAC run by acquaintances and allies of yours. Your face is plastered all over its literature. They advertise that they are in existence to try to influence you. You said in the outset that your entire mission is to try to take on the failing status quo, the industries that have profited off of bad medicine. The companies that donate to MAHA PAC, it's like a who's who of the pharmaceutical industry, including a ton of companies that literally have business before you, and the whole purpose of MAHA PAC seems to be to interact with you and your office. I mean, I don't think we've ever seen this before, a political action committee affiliated, at the very least, with the branding that is central to your persona, taking huge amounts of money from the industry. Again, I know you're going to say that there's no connection between all these donations and what happens inside HHS. But why do you suspect all of these pharmaceutical companies, and they're not giving small amounts. They're giving $20,000, $100,000 to MAHA . Why are they putting all this money into MAHA PAC, if not to try to influence your decision.

RFK: Do you have a single instance where the MAHA PAC has taken a position that is not consistent with my values? I don't run the MAHA PAC. I have no idea who's contributing to them.

Murphy: Why do you think, just take a guess. I mean, you know this is happening. Why do you think that they're contributing? I mean, this company, Vivix, donated $10,000 to MAHA when they had a very important case on skin substitutes before the agency.

RFK: Look what we did on skin substitutes. We put out a business 80% of the industry.

Murphy: But why do you think these companies are making these huge donations to this?

RFK: Well, I have no idea what companies are making any donations. I've never been told, that's the first time I've ever even heard that. I have no idea who's giving money to them. I don't run it. Other people run it. Tell me an instance where they've done something that is underhanded or that is against my values?

Murphy: Yeah, I'll be happy to submit to you and to the committee the instances in which the companies that are making donations to this PAC did so at the exact moment that they had business before your agency.

RFK: I don't know about their business. I have no idea about that.

Murphy: I think it would just be better if you told them to shut this thing down, because it just smacks of corruption. And I just think you'd be much better.

RFK: You have a PAC that supports you?

Murphy: Yeah, I don't take any corporate donations or any PAC donations. Your friends are better off not taking these donations either. Thank you.