Angela Mattie, Quinnipiac University

The secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, or HHS, plays a significant role in every American’s access to health care and in the nation’s overall well-being.

Under the secretary’s leadership, the multiple agencies that constitute HHS oversee the financing of Medicare and Medicaid, conduct research to improve care quality, monitor health care fraud and abuse, and respond to pandemics.

I am a scholar of health care policy and former Robert Wood Johnson Health Policy Fellow on the U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions. In my time as a fellow from 2000 to 2001, I witnessed how significant the HHS secretary’s role is in protecting and preserving the health of our nation.

The secretary’s direction influences America’s ability to prepare for health threats, take up childhood vaccines, enhance the water supply, and a host of other public health measures. Understanding how the department and its leader influences the health of the U.S. is especially important in today’s environment of persistent emerging infectious diseases and misinformation.

What does the Health and Human Services secretary do?

The secretary of Health and Human Services is a member of the president’s cabinet of advisers, appointed by the president with the advice and consent of the U.S. Senate. The secretary advises the president about health care policy issues and public health measures and is responsible for 13 operating divisions in charge of the nation’s health.

The charge of the HHS secretary is to oversee the department’s mission: “to enhance the health and well-being of all Americans, by providing for effective health and human services and by fostering sound, sustained advances in the sciences underlying medicine, public health and social services.”

Implementing this mission requires one of the largest budgets for a U.S. federal agency. According to the Office of Management and Budget, the Health and Human Services Department has accounted for at least 20% of the federal budget since fiscal year 1995. For fiscal year 2025, the HHS requested approximately US$1.8 trillion in federal outlays.

Powers of the HHS secretary

The Health and Human Services secretary has several key powers that allow them to fund and implement programs and initiatives critical to American health and well-being.

One of these powers is the right to administer and regulate Medicare, Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act, or ACA. The largest portion of the HHS budget goes to Medicare and Medicaid programs, which account for 52% and 33% of funds, respectively. The secretary, in coordination with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, sets guidelines for coverage, payment and service delivery. The secretary also issues regulations and guidelines to implement ACA provisions, manage the federal health insurance marketplace, ensure compliance with ACA requirements and educate the public about their rights and benefits under the ACA.

The HHS secretary also has oversight of medical and scientific research. Through the National Institutes of Health, or NIH, the secretary yields broad power in allocating funding and promoting study of the causes, diagnosis, treatment, control and prevention of diseases. The NIH has an annual budget of more than $47 billion.

With the proliferation of international travel, the health of the country is increasingly dependent on the health of the world. The HHS secretary represents the U.S. in global health matters, often collaborating with the World Health Organization, foreign governments and ministries of health to enhance pandemic preparedness and global health security.

Public health emergencies

The HHS secretary also has legal authority to prepare for and respond to public health and medical emergencies.

For example, the Public Health Service Act authorizes the HHS secretary to lead federal responses to health threats, including declaring a public health emergency to control communicable diseases.

Through the Food and Drug Administration, the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act allows the HHS secretary to oversee the safety and efficacy of food, pharmaceuticals, medical devices and cosmetics.

The secretary can also enable the FDA to issue an emergency use authorization, enabling clinicians to use unapproved medical products to manage specific conditions in an emergency. For example, during the COVID-19 pandemic, the HHS secretary declared that the circumstances justified the FDA to issue an EUA for the COVID-19 vaccines, allowing them to be quickly brought to the market.

Under the Social Security Act, the secretary is authorized to waive or modify certain Medicare, Medicaid and Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, or HIPAA, requirements. This provision ensures that health care items and services are available for programs under the Social Security Act during public emergencies.

Notable HHS secretaries

A Health and Human Services secretary’s leadership can support and spearhead health care programs, roll out insurance expansion and determine how the nation responds to a pandemic.

For example, Donna Shalala was the longest-serving HHS secretary, in office from 1993 to 2001. She created the Children’s Health Insurance Program in 1997, which expanded health care access for millions of children.

Oveta Culp Hobby was the first secretary of HHS, then called the Department of Health, Education and Welfare. Serving from 1953 to 1955, she led the rollout of the polio vaccine during her last year, leading to the near eradication of this disabling disease in the United States.

Serving from 2009 to 2014, Kathleen Sebelius was instrumental in implementing the Affordable Care Act. She helped establish the health insurance marketplace and advocated for expanding Medicaid under the ACA, allowing millions of low-income Americans to gain health coverage.

The HHS secretary’s priorities and decisions have a direct and lasting impact on the health and well-being of most Americans, making this role one of the most significant in federal government.

Angela Mattie, Professor of Management & Medical Sciences, Schools of Business & Medicine, Quinnipiac University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Adam Stanaland, University of Richmond

When Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg appeared on a Jan. 10, 2025, episode of “The Joe Rogan Experience,” he lamented that corporate culture had become too “feminine,” suppressing its “masculine energy” and abandoning supposedly valuable traits such as aggression.

The workplace, he concluded, has been “neutered.”

Perhaps not surprisingly, Zuckerberg has also embraced stereotypically masculine pursuits in his personal life. He’s become a mixed martial arts aficionado and has shared his affinity for smoking meats. On his expansive Hawaii compound, he’s even taken up bow-and-arrow pig hunting.

He’s come a long way from the geeky image of his youth.

But is Zuckerberg right? Do workplaces in the U.S. need to embrace a more diesel-fueled, street-fighting, meat-eating mentality?

As a social psychologist who studies masculinity and aggression, I think it’s important to evaluate what the science says about Zuckerbeg’s claims – and to consider what it means for the future of workplace culture in the U.S.

Show no weakness

In 2018, sociologist Jennifer Berdahl and her colleagues coined the term “masculinity contest culture” to describe workplaces rife with cutthroat competition, toxic leadership, bullying and harassment.

Integrating decades of prior research on masculinity in the workplace, Berdahl and her collaborators were able to map how masculinity contest cultures operate, as well as show how they affect organizations and individual employees.

In her experiments, she had participants agree or disagree with statements such as “expressing any emotion other than anger or pride is seen as weak,” based on their perceptions of their own organization. Using advanced statistical techinques, Berdahl’s team was able to distill masculinity contest cultures down to four components: “showing no weakness,” “strength and stamina,” “putting work first” and “dog eat dog.”

Then they were able to show how these cultures are tied to a host of negative outcomes for workers and companies, such as burnout, turnover and poor well-being. And at the organization level, they can foment a dysfunctional office environment, toxic leadership and even bullying and harassment.

An imagined grievance

Based on this research, then, it seems like promoting rigid masculinity in the workplace is not the best solution for an arguably already struggling Meta.

What, then, led Zuckerberg to claim that the workplace has been neutered and must be infused with masculine energy? Has the American office really gone full “Legally Blonde”?

Zuckerberg’s own company isn’t exactly a paragon of parity: Its total workforce, as of 2022, was nearly two-thirds male, while its tech workforce was three-quarters male. Furthermore, according to psychologists Sapna Cheryan and Hazel Markus, workplaces in the U.S. still reflect what they call “masculine defaults” – cultures that reward characteristics or behaviors generally associated with men.

This can range from how companies describe themselves – for example, as places that are “aggressive” and “unrestrained” – to hosting events catering to traditionally male pursuits, such as golf outings.

Although Cheryan and Markus’ analysis centers on how masculine defaults make it harder for women to carve out their professional paths, they can harm everybody, including men.

My research, for example, has shown that when men feel pressured to fulfill certain masculine expectations, they can develop fragile masculine identities, which are linked with aggression and anxiety.

Although the pervasiveness of masculinity norms can give men an upper hand in the workplace, I wonder whether men are contorting themselves to fit into outdated molds of who succeeds at work. Indeed, research shows that successful organizations promote a healthy mix of stereotypically masculine and feminine qualities.

In other words, it’s best when people of all genders feel comfortable showcasing traits such as cooperation and agency, qualities that don’t necessarily fall into one gender camp.

The rise of the fragile billionaire

If many workplaces still possess dog-eat-dog cultures and celebrate masculinity – with evidently poor outcomes – you might wonder why billionaire corporate leaders would advocate for them.

The most generous explanation is ignorance. Zuckerberg could simply be unaware that most offices in the U.S. still possess competitive environments and traits associated with traditional masculinity.

Although this could be the case, I think there could be two other explanations for Zuckerberg’s promotion of rigid masculinity norms.

There could be an economic motive. Perhaps Zuckerberg thinks that promoting his company as an arena of high-stakes competition and aggression is the best way to attract talent and spur innovation in a field already dominated by men. It’s often thought that competition drives innovation. So “Meta needs to be more masculine” could actually be code for “Meta needs to breed more internal competition, which will spur innovation and turn a profit.” This assumption is also misguided: Recent research has shown that internal competition may actually stifle innovation.

There could also be a psychological motive. I’ve found in my research that men are most likely to cling to notions of rigid masculinity when they feel pressure to “man up” and are insecure about themselves.

Perhaps Zuckerberg sees diversity efforts as a challenge to his power. Maybe he thinks aligning himself with President Donald Trump’s version of masculinity will help him gain and retain power, especially as he faces challenges from other tech giants. So his promotion of an aggressive workplace, along with his slashing of policies that could make him look “weak,” are moves to reinforce his status as a leader, as an innovator and as a man.

This isn’t to say that activities such as hunting and mixed martial arts are inherently bad, or even inherently masculine: There are plenty of female hunters and UFC fighters. Nor is it to say that certain masculine characteristics in the workplace are inherently bad.

But when I see middle-aged billionaires – Zuckerberg isn’t the only one – exhibiting the signs of fragile masculinity that I’ve observed among young adult men and adolescent boys, I can’t help but wonder what the country’s future holds.

Adam Stanaland, Assistant Professor of Psychology, University of Richmond

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Armin Langer, University of Florida

In January 2015, 12 people were killed at the French satirist magazine Charlie Hebdo’s office after it published controversial caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad. Ten years later, the tragic events continue to resonate in global conversations about limits to the freedom of expression.

The attacks led to an outpouring of public sympathy for the victims, summed up by the slogan “Je suis Charlie” – “I am Charlie.” This slogan became a symbol of solidarity and declared support for freedom of expression and France’s tradition of using satire in art and media.

Since then, Charlie Hebdo has been framed as a universal symbol of freedom of speech. Yet, for others – especially French Muslims – the magazine represented the reinforcement of racial and religious stereotypes under the guise of satire.

As a scholar who studies secularism in Europe, I argue that communities’ reactions to satire are deeply influenced by factors such as religious marginalization, political exclusion and cultural tensions.

The attack was a horrific act of violence that cannot be justified. However, the discussions that followed often overlooked the ways in which the magazine’s caricatures perpetuated racist stereotypes – particularly against Muslims, who occupy a precarious position in French society.

Punch up, not down

The underlying question of satire’s ethical limits lies in its relationship to power. At its best, satire critiques authority, exposes hypocrisy and challenges systems of dominance.

Jonathan Swift’s 1729 book “A Modest Proposal,” for example, ridiculed British exploitation of the Irish. Similarly, The Onion has published pieces lampooning billionaire greed, and comedian Hasan Minhaj criticized Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman for human rights violations.

I would argue that effective satire should “punch up, not down” – targeting those in positions of power or privilege rather than vulnerable communities who already face oppression.

When satire targets marginalized groups, it can strengthen harmful stereotypes instead of challenging them. For example, Charlie Hebdo’s caricatures of Muslims relied on stereotypical and dehumanizing images – often portraying them as violent extremists.

Charlie Hebdo’s caricatures were not isolated cases; they reflected and reinforced broader narratives in French society that link Islam with backwardness, violence and resistance to integration. In a country where Muslims already face discrimination in jobs, housing and policing, such portrayals can deepen their marginalization.

Supporters of Charlie Hebdo’s style of art pointed out that the magazine has also made fun of Catholics. For instance, the magazine’s cover in 2013 depicted Pope Benedict XVI resigning from the papacy to elope with a Swiss Guard – a satirical critique that highlights the church’s strict views on homosexual relationships.

Charlie Hebdo’s satire of Catholics, however, works differently. While it often harshly criticized the Catholic Church, its target was an institution deeply embedded to France’s culture and history.

Even as religious adherence declines, Catholicism remains deeply intertwined with French national identity in ways that Islam does not. Criticism of the Catholic Church, therefore, challenges a powerful institution, whereas criticism of Islam often targets a marginalized community.

Laïcité and its application

At the heart of this disparity lies France’s strict commitment to laïcité, or secularism. France’s commitment to laïcité is meant to ensure religious neutrality but has often been used to target Muslims unfairly. Many, including myself, would argue that policies like headscarf bans in public schools, for teachers and students alike, and limits on public expressions of Islamic faith have turned laïcité into a tool for exclusion rather than inclusion.

According to some critics, the 2019 Notre Dame fire further exposed the “hypocrisy” of laïcité. While the French government raised nearly US$1 billion to restore the cathedral as a symbol of French heritage, Muslim communities continue to face barriers to building mosques, with local authorities citing the policy of laïcité to block their efforts.

In this context, Charlie Hebdo’s satire of Muslims echoed state narratives portraying Islam as clashing with French secular values. One infamous cartoon showed the prophet with a bomb in his turban, reinforcing the stereotype of Islam as inherently linked to terrorism. Another featured the prophet in sexually suggestive poses, which sent the message that Muslims are sexually strict and backward, while French secular society is modern and free. It fed into old colonial beliefs that Western culture is superior and that Muslims need to be liberated from their alleged backwardness.

Instead of challenging authority, these caricatures often mirrored and reinforced the Islamophobia already prevalent in France. Critics point to examples such as the disproportionate policing and surveillance of neighborhoods with large Muslim populations, which effectively criminalize these communities. Therefore, they argue, Charlie Hebdo’s style of satire crossed the line between critique and complicity, aligning itself with state narratives rather than resisting them.

Rethinking the legacy of Charlie Hebdo

Looking back on 10 years of debates since the Charlie Hebdo attacks, it is clear the discussion must move beyond framing the issue as free speech versus censorship. Instead, I believe the focus should shift to what satire ought to convey in a society striving for equality and justice.

Scholar of Francophone studies Nadia Kiwan writes that the “Je suis Charlie” slogan pushed people to conform to a single way of expressing support, making it hard for those with different views to speak up. She points out that this pressure to agree with the slogan silenced important voices – particularly those attempting to explore deeper causes of the attacks or to question how France handles issues like freedom of speech, equality and diversity.

Satire that uses racist stereotypes can strengthen existing social discrimination and inequalities, instead of challenging power.

A truly inclusive idea of free speech, I believe, must take into account how marginalized groups experience such portrayals, and ensure that freedom of expression does not come at the cost of dignity or respect for others.

Armin Langer, Assistant Professor of European Studies, University of Florida

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.