Archive: Gage Skidmore / CC BY-SA 2.0 (cropped)
Sunday interview: Means said he wanted Wiles removed
In his interview with Margaret Brennan, a portion of which aired Sunday on Face the Nation, Means directly addressed his purpose in making the allegations public. Asked whether he had intended to get Susie Wiles removed, he answered: “Yes.” Asked whether his allegations had been a factor in her departure, he said: “I have no idea.” His stated intention did not establish that his intervention caused the personnel change.
Means again alleged that a group around Wiles had catered to special interests rather than carrying out the health agenda Trump had campaigned on. He named Richard Walters, Walker Barrett and James Blair in describing that group, and separately criticized outside pollster Tony Fabrizio’s influence over policy. Later in the interview, he also referred to Katie Wiles and Chris LaCivita in his allegations about lobbying and access. These were Means’ accusations and descriptions, not independently established findings of misconduct.
Brennan pressed him on the basis for those claims, distinguishing his theory from verified facts. The interview did not itself prove that money changed hands for a particular policy decision. Means’ account of who knew about or approved individual actions should not be read as a finding about those individuals.
Asked whether Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. had known in advance that he would go public, Means answered: “No.” That was Means’ account of Kennedy’s prior knowledge, not a statement from Kennedy.
Means also called for cooperation with Democrats on health policy. He said he believed Kennedy and Stephen Miller would be open to meetings and specific progress on drug pricing, labels for ultra-processed food, and greater disclosure and review processes at the Food and Drug Administration. The discussion included Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and Abdul El-Sayed as potential Democratic partners. Means was describing possible cooperation, not announcing a deal, a meeting schedule or legislation agreed with those lawmakers.
Watch the official 41-minute, 16-second full interview with Calley Means.
Former Trump administration health adviser Calley Means says White House officials allowed industry lobbying and midterm-election calculations to block parts of the Make America Healthy Again agenda, offering an insider’s account of the policy fights that preceded his resignation.
Means made the allegations in a Friday podcast interview with Joe Rogan. The episode aired Nov. 6, more than two weeks after Means left the administration on Oct. 22.
Means, a former senior adviser to Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. who also worked in the White House, said Kennedy’s Democratic background and decision to work with Republican President Donald Trump offered a major opportunity to bring the parties together. He said he joined believing their alliance could overcome resistance to health-policy changes.
The policies at stake
Means’ food-policy examples included school meals, an ultra-processed-food definition and former FDA commissioner David Kessler’s proposed inquiry into sugar and refined carbohydrates. He alleged that industry objections and the desire to preserve election money stalled proposals even after extensive internal work. He also credited public pressure and direct presidential intervention with advancing some initiatives, including food-dye changes and state restrictions on soda purchases with SNAP benefits.
Who he says controlled policy and access
Means traced those delays to the White House policy process, describing Wiles’ office as a central gatekeeper for Cabinet policy. He said no policy decision moved forward without her office’s approval and that Cabinet secretaries spent meetings discussing how to win her favor. He described this small circle as among the most powerful people in the country because they controlled which proposals advanced, not merely the scheduling of meetings. The people he identified around Wiles were:
- James Blair: Means described the former political-operations official as a key policy gatekeeper who remained involved after moving to midterm work.
- Walker Barrett: Means named him as a powerful deputy and the official who presented the glyphosate order as final.
- Richard Walters: Means described the fundraiser and former consultant as an influential deputy who took on responsibilities while Wiles received cancer treatment.
- Tony Fabrizio: Means said Trump’s outside pollster could determine whether proposals were considered politically acceptable.
- Chris LaCivita: Means pointed to the campaign adviser and outside consultant as another influential figure.
He also pointed to Wiles’ former firm, Ballard Partners, as an example of the connections he believed shaped access.
Means specifically alleged that Fabrizio was being paid by Pepsi while advising that some MAHA proposals were not worth the political cost. He framed that combination as a conflict between corporate clients and the policy changes voters had supported. Fabrizio is an outside pollster and adviser, not a deputy White House chief of staff.
His firm’s public biography, checked Nov. 7, lists PepsiCo, Pfizer, Juul and Altria among companies he “has worked for.”
Means said companies hiring Wiles’ daughter through Continental Strategies were discussed internally as higher-priority matters. He also cited Checkmate and Ballard as firms whose business grew with their connections to the administration.
Midterm money versus the health coalition
He said election strategy shaped that process: the political team emphasized redistricting, targeted campaigning, affordability, tax cuts and no tax on tips rather than the health changes that he believed had helped build Trump’s coalition with Kennedy. He recalled Fabrizio dismissing MAHA as a relatively unimportant part of the election strategy and judging some proposals not worth the political cost.
Means alleged that Wiles told him industry money was needed for the midterms. His criticism was both ethical and political: he said carrying out popular campaign promises would have motivated voters more effectively than postponing those promises to preserve industry support. He rejected the argument that officials could wait until after the election to act, asking why the incentives would suddenly change then.
He blamed that approach for the party’s midterm losses. Rogan challenged his emphasis on staff, pointing to Trump’s own decisions, including the Iran war and cryptocurrency controversies. Means acknowledged that the president bore ultimate responsibility, while arguing that staff controlled many decisions below his attention.
Glyphosate: scrutiny, legal recourse and a national-security order
One detailed case study was glyphosate. Means described a fight simply to mention glyphosate in the administration’s health report. He alleged that industry and agricultural-state lawmakers pushed against further inquiry and that officials faced pressure not to study the pesticide. His argument was not that all use could end immediately: he said farmers needed alternatives and that lawsuits could create incentives to develop them.
He said Barrett presented him with a final executive order invoking national security and told him Kennedy should not reopen the discussion. The February order, signed Feb. 18, invokes the Defense Production Act to protect supplies of elemental phosphorus and glyphosate-based herbicides. Its stated rationale links phosphorus to defense manufacturing and glyphosate to agricultural productivity and food security. Means disputed that rationale and the process behind it.
Separately, he criticized the administration’s legal support for pesticide manufacturers in Supreme Court litigation. He alleged that Heidi Overton and lawyer Sarah Harris helped advance a position favoring liability protection without Kennedy’s involvement. Means said Trump later reacted negatively when the issue was raised with him.
Psychedelics and presidential intervention
By contrast, he described psychedelic research as an initiative that advanced after presidential intervention. He said it initially faced resistance from Wiles and Overton, whom he described as treating the therapies like ordinary street drugs. He said Rogan’s call to Trump helped break that impasse and drew complaints inside the White House that an outsider had bypassed the policy process.
He defended that contact as a legitimate way for a public constituency to reach the president. By the time he left, Means said, the initiative was moving more positively than many others, with work toward faster research and review of potential therapies, including ibogaine. He said he remained in contact with officials trying to keep that work moving.
Flavored vapes and concentrated kratom products
On vaping, he described pressure in the other direction, toward fewer restrictions. He alleged that Blair and other political officials made a more permissive pathway for fruit-flavored vapes a high-priority health issue, arguing that it mattered to young male voters. He said then-FDA commissioner Marty Makary faced repeated pressure over approvals while the health agenda received less attention.
He said Makary resisted relaxing standards and that Overton later pushed a policy change that drew legal opposition.
Means also criticized the handling of concentrated 7-hydroxymitragynine, or 7-OH, products associated with the kratom market. He alleged that lobbying pressure led officials to allow a concentration threshold 20 times higher than an earlier proposal. He distinguished the concentrated compound from trace amounts in the leaf and argued that easier access could worsen opioid addiction.
Review procedures he questioned
He extended that criticism to vaccine-review procedures, alleging that corporate pressure affected review of a Moderna mRNA flu vaccine and said an additional Pfizer COVID-vaccine study requirement was dropped after Makary left.
The system Means says operates across both parties
Means broadened his criticism beyond the Trump White House, arguing that the disputes were examples of a system that survives changes in party control. He said it had operated for roughly 30 years and called it a “structural problem,” rather than something unique to Trump or the Democrats. He argued that Congress had not meaningfully constrained special interests and said replacing individual officials would not, by itself, change the incentives.
He described a cycle in which companies hire people close to the officials who control policy, former staffers sell their access and knowledge after leaving government, and political leaders treat industry support as essential to winning the next election. In his account, that gives officials reasons to accommodate potential future employers and gives outside advisers conflicting incentives when their clients have business before the government.
Means said lobbying business was already shifting toward former staffers of Democratic leaders Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries as power shifted. “It’s not one party,” he said.
There is a separately documented hospital-industry address by Schumer: in an April speech published by Senate Democrats on April 20, 2026, Schumer told the American Hospital Association that hospitals would have resources and “a seat at the table” under Democratic control. He said he consulted the association and the health-care industry before changes and called for strengthening the Affordable Care Act, Medicare and Medicaid.
To illustrate the revolving door, Means recounted attending a dinner with Eli Lilly CEO Dave Ricks and another White House staffer who, he said, later became a lobbyist. He also questioned the move of National Security Council official Courtney Knupp to the United Soybean Board after work he associated with the glyphosate order. He presented those examples as evidence of career incentives that extend beyond any single administration.
Why he left and spoke publicly
Means said the stalled proposals, and what he regarded as misleading assurances about them, led him to leave the administration.
Means said speaking openly was now the most useful way he could advance the agenda. He remained optimistic about the movement, described his departure as an early stage rather than an endpoint and said telling the truth about the process could itself create pressure for change.
Means framed his decision to speak publicly as an effort to press for the health-policy commitments that drew him into the administration, rather than abandon the MAHA agenda.
The White House response
The White House defended its record. In a reported response, spokeswoman Allison Schuster said the administration had secured health-policy victories, citing dietary-guideline changes, action on artificial ingredients and investment in regenerative farming. She said Trump and Kennedy continued working to deliver further gains.
His call to action
His proposed answer went beyond replacing individual staff members. Means called on Americans across party lines to demand changes to the rules of government rather than keep switching parties within the same system. He urged Trump to change the people controlling policy and work with willing Democrats as well as Republicans on institutional reform. He said there were officials inside the administration who still wanted to carry out the original health commitments and argued that Trump could change course during the remaining two years.
His longer-term proposals focused on changing the rules:
Money in politics: A short, bipartisan constitutional amendment applying comparable restrictions to corporate and union money.
Outside influence: Scrutiny of super PACs, foreign-government payments to influential advisers and lawmakers’ fundraising demands.
Senate elections: Reconsidering direct election of senators in favor of the earlier system of selection by state legislatures.
He argued that these institutional changes should come before another round of policy promises.
He proposed making reform a central presidential campaign promise and using public pressure to force Congress to act. He also raised the Constitution’s state-convention route as an alternative path to amendments. Means’ broader point was that new policy promises would keep running into the same obstacles unless the underlying incentives changed.
JBizNews Desk | Washington
© JBizNews.com. All rights reserved. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution is strictly prohibited.
.jpg){kind=link}