WASHINGTON – Dr. Jerome Adams, who served as U.S. Surgeon General during the Trump administration, has sharply criticized Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. for his handling of the recent deadly shootings at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) headquarters in Atlanta. In remarks first reported by Politico, Adams accused Kennedy of a "failed" and "tepid" response, further igniting a volatile debate over political rhetoric and its impact on public institutions.

The criticism centers on the aftermath of the tragic events of August 8, when a gunman attacked the CDC's Roybal campus, leaving three employees dead and several others wounded before being neutralized by law enforcement. The incident has sent shockwaves through the public health community and prompted a national security review of federal scientific facilities.

According to the initial report, Dr. Adams condemned the timing and substance of Kennedy's public statement on the attack. "It took him over 18 hours to issue a tepid response to these horrific shootings," Adams stated, adding that this delay was compounded by what he described as Kennedy's history of "inflammatory rhetoric" against the agency he now leads.

A Delayed Statement and Accusations of Incitement

HHS Secretary Kennedy, a long-time critic of the CDC and vaccine mandates before his appointment, released a written statement the day after the shootings. He expressed his condolences, stating, "My heart is with the victims, their families, and the entire CDC community during this time of profound grief. We are working closely with law enforcement to understand this senseless act of violence."

However, critics like Adams argue the statement was insufficient and came too late for a leader whose past rhetoric has been accused of fostering distrust and anger toward the public health institution. For years, Kennedy was a prominent voice in the anti-vaccine movement, frequently accusing the CDC of corruption and a lack of transparency. Adams suggested this history created a dangerous environment. "His inflammatory rhetoric in the past has actually contributed to a lot of what's behind this," Adams told Politico.

A spokesperson for the HHS defended the Secretary's actions, emphasizing that Kennedy's immediate priority was to coordinate the department's response with the White House and law enforcement agencies. "Secretary Kennedy was actively engaged in the multi-agency response from the moment he was briefed," the spokesperson said in a statement released Monday. "His focus was on ensuring the safety of all federal employees and supporting the active investigation, not on making premature public statements."

Political Rhetoric Under the Microscope

The clash highlights the deep political divisions surrounding public health in the United States. Since his confirmation, Kennedy has pledged to reform the HHS and its agencies, but his leadership has been met with skepticism from many within the scientific and medical communities who remember his previous activism.

The shooting has forced a reckoning with the consequences of heated political language. Security analysts and experts on domestic extremism have warned for years that sustained verbal attacks on government institutions can inspire violence among radicalized individuals. While no motive for the CDC shooter has been officially confirmed, the incident is being investigated through the lens of anti-government sentiment.

Dr. Amelia Vance, a sociologist at the Brookings Institution who studies political violence, commented that the situation puts a spotlight on official responsibility. "When public figures, especially those in power, consistently frame government agencies as enemies of the people, it can lower the threshold for violent action," she explained. "This isn't about direct causation, but about creating an ecosystem where such horrific acts become more conceivable."

As the investigation into the Atlanta tragedy continues, the debate over Secretary Kennedy's leadership and the broader impact of political discourse is likely to intensify, placing the White House in a difficult position as it navigates a crisis that is simultaneously a security failure and a political firestorm.