> ## Content Index
> Fetch the complete content index at: https://www.fdaweb.com/llms.txt
> Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further.

# Former FDA and HHS Heads Opine on Next Commissioner
- URL: https://www.fdaweb.com/former-fda-and-hhs-heads-opine-on-next-commissioner/
- Published: 2026-06-01T12:00:00.000Z
- Updated: 2026-09-14T13:40:15.000Z
- Author: David McFarland
- Tags: FDA Policy/General, #legacy-id-D5161233

Former FDA commissioner **Andrew C. von Eschenbach** and former HHS secretary **Tommy G. Thompson** are urging policymakers to prioritize leadership and institutional stewardship over professional credentials as the search continues for the next FDA commissioner. In an opinion article published Monday, Thompson and von Eschenbach, who both served under president **George W. Bush**, argued that the agency's next leader should be judged less by whether he or she is a physician, scientist, lawyer or policy expert and more by the ability to preserve public trust in FDA's decision-making process.

The [opinion piece](https://www.realclearhealth.com/articles/2026/06/01/the%5Ffda%5Fcommissioners%5Fjob%5Fisnt%5Fpracticing%5Fmedicine%5Fits%5Fbuilding%5Ftrust%5F1186014.html?ref=fdaweb.com) comes amid uncertainty over FDA leadership following the recent departure of former commissioner **Marty Makary**, with administration officials expected to nominate a permanent successor in the coming months.

"The FDA Commissioner's job isn't practicing medicine, it's building trust," the former officials wrote. The pair said FDA already employs a large cadre of scientific and regulatory experts, including physicians, statisticians, pharmacologists, epidemiologists and inspectors, whose responsibility is to evaluate evidence supporting medical products and other regulated goods.

Instead, they argued, the commissioner's primary role is to ensure that agency decisions are grounded in science, follow established laws and regulations, and are applied consistently and predictably.

According to Thompson and von Eschenbach, maintaining that consistency is critical to preserving confidence among patients, healthcare providers, regulated companies and FDA staff. They warned that changing regulatory expectations after sponsors have spent years following agency guidance can undermine confidence in the regulatory system.

The former officials also stressed the importance of keeping scientific decision-making separate from political considerations, even as FDA operates within a politically charged environment that includes oversight from Congress, HHS, industry stakeholders and advocacy groups.

They argued that FDA's responsibility is to provide rigorous scientific assessments of products' safety and effectiveness, while elected officials retain authority to make broader policy decisions based on economic, trade or political considerations.

To illustrate the distinction, the authors pointed to FDA's role during implementation of the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), when the agency faced pressure to accelerate reviews of HIV therapies. They said the commissioner's responsibility was to ensure that products met FDA's standards for safety and effectiveness, regardless of the broader policy goals.

Beyond defending scientific integrity, Thompson and von Eschenbach said the next commissioner must also be willing to defend FDA employees and agency decisions before Congress and the public, while holding the agency accountable when reviews or analyses fall short of FDA's standards.

The authors acknowledged that medical, scientific, legal and management experience can all be valuable qualifications for the position. However, they concluded that no single credential guarantees success.

"The next Commissioner must be judged by whether he or she can protect FDA's real source of authority," they wrote, describing that authority as a process in which evidence drives decisions, science is respected and public servants are able to carry out their work free from undue political influence.