When Robert F. Kennedy Jr. walked into the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), it wasn't after some landslide victory. Not even close. The Senate confirmed him in a 52-48 vote on February 13, 2025. Honestly, the room felt more like a courtroom than a confirmation hearing. It was tense.
You’ve probably heard people arguing about his stance on fluoride or raw milk, but when it came down to the official tally, it was almost entirely a party-line brawl. Except for one very specific, very high-profile Republican who broke ranks.
If you're looking for the specifics on who voted against RFK Jr, you have to look at the 47 Democrats, the 2 Independents who caucus with them, and the lone GOP outlier: Mitch McConnell.
Why Mitch McConnell Said No
Mitch McConnell doesn't usually make a habit of voting against Donald Trump’s cabinet picks, but this time was different. The former Senate Majority Leader didn’t just quietly cast a "nay." He made it clear that his personal history mattered here.
McConnell is a polio survivor.
💡 You might also like: Passive Resistance Explained: Why It Is Way More Than Just Standing Still
He remembers a time before vaccines were a political football—back when they were a miracle for a kid who couldn't walk. During the floor debate, the Kentucky Republican basically said that while he supports the President's right to pick his team, Kennedy hadn't proven he was the best person to lead the nation's health infrastructure. McConnell specifically pointed to RFK Jr.'s long track record of vaccine skepticism. For a guy who lived through the polio era, those "alternative" views were a bridge too far.
The Democratic Block: 47 Nays
On the other side of the aisle, the opposition was total. Democrats didn't just vote no; they turned the floor into a 30-hour marathon of speeches.
Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) was particularly vocal. She called the nomination "dangerous" and focused heavily on Kennedy's financial disclosures. She argued that his history as a lawyer suing pharmaceutical companies created massive conflicts of interest. Basically, she didn't want the guy who made a career out of suing the FDA to be the one running it.
Here is a breakdown of the primary players who led the charge against the confirmation:
📖 Related: What Really Happened With the Women's Orchestra of Auschwitz
- Ron Wyden (D-OR): As the ranking member of the Finance Committee, Wyden called Kennedy the "least qualified nominee" he had ever seen for this specific role.
- Brian Schatz (D-HI): He brought up the 2019 measles outbreak in Samoa, linking Kennedy's activism to the deaths of 83 children. It was a heavy, somber moment in the chamber.
- Angela Alsobrooks (D-MD): She hit on the potential impact on Black children, noting that vaccination rates in minority communities are already lower and that Kennedy’s rhetoric could make it worse.
- John Fetterman (D-PA): This one was a bit of a surprise to some. Fetterman had actually spoken somewhat favorably about RFK Jr.'s focus on chronic disease and "cleaning up" the food supply earlier in the year. But when the roll was called? He stayed with the party and voted nay.
The Independent Dissidents
Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Angus King (I-ME) are Independents, but they rarely side with the GOP on major health policy. They didn't start now.
Sanders focused his opposition on Kennedy’s potential to disrupt Medicare and Medicaid. He was worried that RFK Jr.’s "disruptor" energy would translate into budget cuts for the country's most vulnerable. King, on the other hand, was more concerned about the "anti-science" label. He argued that the head of HHS needs to be someone who trusts the consensus of the 30,000+ scientists working at the NIH and CDC.
The Senators Who Almost Voted No
It’s worth mentioning the people who almost made this list. For a while, it looked like Susan Collins (R-ME) and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) might join the "no" camp. They are the usual suspects when it comes to crossing the aisle.
They expressed serious concerns during the hearings in late January. Collins even grilled him on the debunked link between vaccines and autism. But in the final week, both announced they would support him. They essentially decided that the President deserves his chosen cabinet, even if they don't agree with every single thing that cabinet member says.
👉 See also: How Much Did Trump Add to the National Debt Explained (Simply)
Bill Cassidy (R-LA), who is actually a doctor, also wrestled with it. He told reporters he was "struggling" with the vote. In the end, he voted yes, but he spent most of the committee hearing imploring Kennedy to publicly reject the more extreme conspiracy theories.
The Final Tally
When the clerk called the names, the result was 52 Yeas and 48 Nays.
If you look at the map, the "No" votes were concentrated in the Northeast, the West Coast, and parts of the upper Midwest. It was a sea of red with a few blue islands, and that one lone "Nay" coming out of Kentucky.
Actionable Insights: What Happens Now?
Now that the vote is over and RFK Jr. is officially at the helm, the focus shifts from who voted to what happens next. Here is how you can stay informed:
- Monitor the CDC Schedule: One of the big fears from the "No" voters was that Kennedy would change the childhood vaccine schedule. Watch for official Federal Register notices on these changes.
- Watch the "MAHA" Initiative: The "Make America Healthy Again" platform focuses on food additives and pesticides. This is where he might find some bipartisan support that he didn't get during his confirmation.
- Check Oversight Hearings: The 48 senators who voted against him aren't going away. Expect the Senate Finance Committee and the HELP Committee to keep him on a very short leash with frequent oversight hearings.
The confirmation of RFK Jr. was one of the narrowest for an HHS Secretary in history. It reflects a deeply divided country and a Senate that is skeptical of outsiders. Whether the 48 senators who voted "no" will be proven right—or if Kennedy will surprise them—is the story of 2026.
Keep an eye on the first 100 days of his tenure. That's when we’ll see if the concerns of the dissenters translate into actual policy shifts at the FDA and CDC.