Makary out as FDA commissioner after tumultuous tenure, pro-life criticism
President Donald Trump announced on May 12, 2026 that FDA Commissioner Marty Makary will leave his post. Makary’s tenure was marked by complaints from health industry executives, pro‑life advocates, vaping lobbyists, and others. Pro‑life groups were among the most vocal critics of Makary’s policies and decisions. The announcement follows a rocky period of controversy surrounding Makary’s leadership at the FDA.
5 months ago
Marty Makary’s departure as commissioner of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration was confirmed by President Donald Trump on May 12, 2026. Makary’s tenure was marked by criticism from pro‑life groups over the FDA’s handling of the abortion pill mifepristone, and his exit has been welcomed by many anti‑abortion advocates who now look to the president for a new, “pro‑life” appointee 1 2 3.
President Trump told reporters that Makary “was having some difficulty” and would be leaving the post, praising him as “a terrific guy” 1. Trump announced that Deputy Commissioner for Human Foods Kyle Diamantas would serve as acting commissioner pending a Senate‑confirmed nominee 1 2.
Pro‑life organizations such as Susan B. Anthony Pro‑Life America, Students for Life, Live Action, and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops welcomed the resignation, describing Makary as “uniquely destructive” and “slow‑walking” the safety review of mifepristone 1 2 3. Senators Josh Hawley and Bill Cassidy also voiced approval, calling the resignation “welcome news” and an opportunity to “reset” the agency 2.
The same groups raised alarm over Diamantas’ prior work as counsel for a Planned Parenthood affiliate in a property dispute, fearing a potential conflict of interest. Trump advisers countered that Diamantas withdrew from the case on moral grounds and emphasized his pro‑life stance 2 3.
During Makary’s term, the FDA approved a generic version of mifepristone in September 2025 while a promised safety review was perceived as delayed 1 2. Pro‑life advocates demanded a return to in‑person dispensing of the drug to prevent “coercion and abuse” and to enable enforcement of state abortion restrictions 1 2. The Department of Justice even sought to pause a lawsuit challenging the 2023 deregulation of mifepristone 2.
Makary’s resignation came amid broader tensions between the Trump administration and health‑industry stakeholders, including vaping lobbyists and other executives. While Trump did not attribute the departure to the abortion‑pill issue, he reiterated that “everybody wants this job” and hinted at a forthcoming nomination 1. The acting commissioner’s appointment will require Senate confirmation, leaving the final direction of FDA policy on abortion drugs uncertain 1 2.
Examine Catholic doctrine on abortion versus state regulatory authority
Catholic doctrine teaches that direct abortion is intrinsically illicit (a grave moral disorder) that no human law can make lawful. At the same time, Catholic teaching does not deny civil authority; rather, it insists that the state’s regulatory power is morally bounded by the divine and natural law, with concrete guidance for how Catholics should respond—especially when abortion is legalized or financed by law.
Catholic sources consistently present abortion—specifically direct abortion—as a grave violation of God’s law from the earliest stages of pregnancy, tied to natural law and divine revelation.
The Catechism states: “From its conception, the child has the right to life. Direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, is a ‘criminal’ practice… gravely contrary to the moral law.”
Similarly, Evangelium Vitae teaches by papal authority that:
The 1974 Vatican Declaration on procured abortion explains that historical and theological debate about timing of “spiritual animation” never introduced doubt about the illicitness of procured abortion, even in early days, noting that the condemnation was “unanimous.”
A key Catholic point is that law can recognize rights but cannot generate moral permission for intrinsic evil. Evangelium Vitae frames the issue explicitly as a matter of moral disorder rooted in natural law and God’s written Word, taught by the Church’s ordinary and universal Magisterium.
The Catechism links the moral gravity to canonical consequences, and Evangelium Vitae describes the canonical tradition (e.g., automatic excommunication for those who actually procure abortion) as a sign that the Church treats abortion as a “most serious and dangerous crime,” meant to foster conversion.
Catholic teaching does not reduce politics to individual preference; it maintains that civil authority has a real duty toward the common good—including protection of persons—yet it cannot claim a “free hand” over what is morally wrong.
The Church’s social teaching (as summarized in the provided Catholic source) holds that a human law has the character of law only insofar as it accords with right reason and thus derives from the eternal law; when it fails, it is “unjust” and is likened to “a kind of violence.”
This is a crucial bridge between doctrine and state regulation: the state regulates, but it is not sovereign over moral truth.
The U.S. bishops’ pastoral applications state the practical moral conclusion: “Whenever a conflict arises between the law of God and any human law, we are held to follow God’s law.”
The same document draws a direct line to conscience and civil compliance:
So Catholic doctrine rejects the idea that state legalization automatically removes moral obligation.
The provided Catholic sources describe a concrete posture toward abortion legalization and regulation in civil society—not only a personal moral refusal, but also engagement through lawful and prudential means.
The bishops’ statement includes: “Catholics must oppose abortion as an immoral act.”
This is consistent with Evangelium Vitae’s insistence that no law can make illicit acts licit. If abortion is intrinsically wrong, legal status cannot change the moral demand to oppose it.
In the context of modern legislation, the bishops argue that some federal proposals would “force” health care professionals and institutions to perform or refer for abortion against their beliefs, and would override conscience protections.
While the precise legal mechanics are modern, the Catholic moral structure is the same: participating in an abortion or its deliberate enabling in a way that makes one complicit is gravely wrong, and Catholics should resist unjust coercion where possible.
Catholic teaching on political action does not always demand maximalist legislative outcomes before any moral effort is permitted. The bishops explain prudentially that:
Yet the same text emphasizes that Catholics “must never abandon the moral requirement to seek full protection for all human life” from conception until natural death.
This is the Church’s characteristic “tension”: seek real reductions in harm without treating partial protections as morally sufficient in the long run.
A practical battleground today is whether the state should fund abortion or structure healthcare systems to normalize it.
In the U.S. bishops’ campaign materials about Hyde-style restrictions, the central Catholic argument is that abortion remains wrong even if society normalizes it, and that “forcing taxpayers to fund abortions” imposes an injustice on those who oppose abortion.
The bishops also argue that funding restrictions can reduce abortion rates and complications, and that government may pursue a legitimate public goal of encouraging childbirth rather than abortion.
The bishops’ materials explicitly frame the debate not as “religion versus the state,” but as a dispute about whether abortion is a wrongful attack on life. In that framework, they argue the state can have legitimate secular purposes aligned with moral truths, rejecting the view that opposition must always be privatized.
(That argument is presented within a U.S. legal/political context in the source, so it’s best understood as an application of Catholic moral reasoning to constitutional debate rather than a full-blown philosophical theory of secularism.)
That is the Catholic doctrinal logic for regulating abortion: civil authority must protect the common good—including the inviolable right to life—and may not morally authorize an intrinsically illicit act.