A Dangerous Prescription: The Troubling Nomination of Dr. Casey Means as Surgeon General

The Facts: The Nomination and Its Context

Dr. Casey Means, sister of a Trump administration health official, was nominated by former President Donald Trump in May to serve as Surgeon General of the United States. Her nomination hearing before the Senate health committee was scheduled for Thursday but was postponed when Dr. Means went into labor shortly before the proceedings. Alongside her brother, Dr. Means became a prominent figure in the MAHA movement after co-authoring a book criticizing what they perceive as fundamental problems in American medicine. She has built her career questioning mainstream medical approaches, arguing that they often fail to address underlying causes of illness while keeping patients in endless treatment cycles.

Dr. Means co-founded Levels, a company that markets continuous glucose monitors primarily to customers without diabetes, offering packages costing up to $1,499 annually that include monitoring devices, lab panels, and health coaching. In recent government filings, she committed to resigning from her advisory role at Levels, selling her stock, and stepping away from her work as an influencer promoting dietary supplements and wellness products if confirmed as Surgeon General. This nomination represents the Trump administration’s continued interest in placing critics of established medical institutions into key health policy positions, potentially reshaping the approach to public health guidance at the highest levels of government.

The timing of this nomination coincides with ongoing debates about the role of science in public policy and the appropriate boundaries between evidence-based medicine and the burgeoning wellness industry. The Surgeon General position carries significant influence in shaping national health priorities and public health messaging, making the philosophical orientation of the nominee particularly consequential for American healthcare infrastructure and public trust in medical institutions.

Opinion: When Wellness Culture Threatens Public Health

This nomination represents nothing short of an existential threat to the scientific integrity of American public health leadership. The idea that someone who has built their career on undermining evidence-based medicine could be entrusted with the nation’s highest medical office is profoundly alarming and demonstrates a dangerous disregard for the principles that have protected public health for generations. Dr. Means’s background in promoting expensive wellness products to wealthy consumers while criticizing mainstream medicine suggests an approach that prioritizes individualistic, profit-driven health solutions over collective, scientifically-validated public health measures.

The wellness industry’s infiltration into government health policy is particularly troubling because it often replaces rigorous scientific standards with anecdotal evidence and market-driven approaches. When the Surgeon General’s office becomes a platform for promoting unproven health trends rather than disseminating evidence-based guidance, we risk eroding public trust in all medical institutions. The role requires someone who understands and respects the scientific method, peer-reviewed research, and the collective wisdom of medical experts—not someone who has built their reputation questioning these very foundations.

What’s equally concerning is the potential conflict between Dr. Means’s previous commercial interests and her responsibilities as Surgeon General. While she has promised to divest from her company, the philosophical alignment between her business model and her approach to health policy remains problematic. The Surgeon General must represent all Americans, not just those who can afford expensive monitoring devices and personalized coaching. Public health is fundamentally about equity and accessibility—principles that seem incompatible with a background in luxury wellness products.

Our democracy depends on institutions staffed by qualified experts committed to factual accuracy and scientific integrity. Placing someone with a demonstrated hostility toward mainstream medicine in this crucial role undermines the very foundations of effective governance. The Surgeon General should be a voice of reason and stability, not a platform for anti-establishment rhetoric that could confuse the public during health crises. This nomination feels like a betrayal of the public’s trust and a dangerous experiment with the health of millions of Americans.