RFK Jr./MAHA: Constituent Expressed Opposition, Response Praised the Agenda

Healthcare Source: Constituent Letter Response NON-RESPONSIVE

Why This Matters for NY-23

Rural communities depend on accurate public health information for disease prevention, vaccination programs, and healthcare decisions. When a constituent expresses concerns about RFK Jr.’s documented history of vaccine misinformation leading HHS, a responsive representative would address those concerns — not respond by praising the agenda the constituent opposed.

Statement

Source: Constituent Letter Response, January 14, 2026

Constituent wrote expressing opposition to HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

Langworthy’s response:

“President Trump and Secretary Kennedy’s Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) agenda received strong support from voters in the November 2024 election - and for good reason.”

“I am a proud member of the Congressional MAHA Caucus.”

Congressional Record

H.R.919 (Chronic Disease Flexible Coverage Act):

  • Passed House: March 4, 2025 (voice vote, unanimous)
  • Sponsors: Rep. Vern Buchanan (R-FL), Rep. Jimmy Panetta (D-CA)
  • Status: Referred to Senate Finance Committee
  • Verdict: ACCURATE
  • Source: Congress.gov, Ways and Means Committee

Langworthy’s Committee Membership:

  • House Energy and Commerce Committee: VERIFIED
  • Congressional MAHA Caucus: Claimed, unable to independently verify

Context

What the letter says about COVID-19:

“The COVID-19 pandemic exposed serious shortcomings in our public health system including widespread misinformation from government sources regarding the virus’s origin, vaccine efficacy, and transmission data.”

What the letter does NOT address:

  • RFK Jr.’s documented history of vaccine misinformation
  • The constituent’s specific reasons for opposing the nomination
  • Any acknowledgment that the constituent OPPOSED RFK Jr.

The Response Pattern

Constituent’s position: Opposition to RFK Jr.

Langworthy’s response:

  • Praised MAHA agenda as having “strong support from voters”
  • Announced his MAHA Caucus membership
  • Cited H.R.919 (chronic disease coverage) - a bipartisan bill unrelated to RFK Jr.
  • Did not address constituent’s concerns

Closing statement:

“I will keep your thoughts in mind as Congress considers further legislation regarding the MAHA agenda and codifying Secretary Kennedy’s changes within HHS.”

The implication: Constituent opposed RFK Jr.; Langworthy will “keep in mind” while working to codify RFK Jr.’s changes.

Questions This Raises

  1. Is it responsive to praise an agenda when the constituent expressed opposition to it?

  2. What specific concerns did the constituent raise about RFK Jr., and were any addressed?

  3. H.R.919 is a bipartisan bill on chronic disease HSA coverage - how does it relate to RFK Jr. or MAHA specifically?

  4. Does “keeping your thoughts in mind” while “codifying Secretary Kennedy’s changes” address opposition to Kennedy?

Sources

  • Congress.gov: H.R.919 legislative record
  • House Ways and Means Committee: H.R.919 summary
  • Langworthy.house.gov: Committee assignments

Note: This entry documents publicly available information from official congressional records. Readers may draw their own conclusions.

Research contribution: Constituent submission via LangworthyWatch

In Plain Language

The constituent wrote: “I oppose RFK Jr.”

Langworthy’s response: “The MAHA agenda received strong support from voters! I’m a proud MAHA Caucus member! I’ll keep your thoughts in mind as we codify Secretary Kennedy’s changes.”

That’s the opposite of responsive. The constituent expressed opposition; Langworthy praised what they opposed, announced his membership in a supporting caucus, and promised to “keep in mind” their concerns while actively working to make the changes permanent.

This isn’t unusual — it’s the pattern. The office has form letters ready for topics, but those letters don’t adjust based on whether the constituent supports or opposes the issue.

Last updated: January 20, 2026