The claim that Robert F. Kennedy Jr. didn’t qualify for Secret Service protection due to polling requirements has been widely cited but is misleading. A deeper look into public records, federal law, and the decision-making process reveals significant issues with transparency and fairness in how such protection was wrongfully denied six times. Here’s what really happened.

Secret Service Protection: What the Law Says

Federal law authorizes the Secret Service to protect major presidential and vice presidential candidates. According to the statute, this decision is made after consulting an advisory committee composed of:

• The Speaker of the House
• The Minority Leader of the House
• The Majority and Minority Leaders of the Senate
• An additional member chosen by the committee

The law itself does not include polling requirements for determining eligibility. Instead, these were guidelines introduced by Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas. According to these guidelines, Democratic and Republican candidates needed to poll above 15% nationally, while Independent candidates were required to poll above 20%. This additional threshold for Independents is not codified in law and was an arbitrary addition by Mayorkas.

The Timeline of RFK Jr.’s Requests

Kennedy’s campaign made six formal requests for Secret Service protection:

1. May 26, 2023
2. August 24, 2023
3. October 25, 2023
4. January 2, 2024
5. March 1, 2024
6. March 29, 2024

Each request was denied, with the justification frequently citing Kennedy’s polling numbers as insufficient. However, this argument is undermined by the law’s lack of any polling requirement, leaving the decision squarely in the hands of the advisory committee and key officials.

Who Was Responsible?

The advisory committee included the following members during this period:

• Chuck Schumer (Senate Majority Leader)
• Mitch McConnell (Senate Minority Leader)
• Karen Gibson (Senate Sergeant at Arms)
• Mike Johnson (Speaker of the House)
• Hakeem Jeffries (House Minority Leader)

Additionally, both Secretary Mayorkas and President Biden held the authority to unilaterally grant Secret Service protection. Their decisions—or lack thereof—played a central role in Kennedy’s delayed protection.

A Revealing Email from 2020

An email from 2020, inadvertently included in the public records released through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, sheds light on the extent of discretionary power in this process. Sent from the Office of the Chief Counsel, the email explicitly states that “the Director has the unilateral authority to authorize this action.” This confirms that the Secret Service Director could have approved protection independently, without advisory committee approval.

Furthermore, the email notes that such protection could also be authorized by presidential memorandum. This means that multiple individuals—including the advisory committee members, Secretary Mayorkas, and President Biden—had the power to grant Kennedy protection but chose not to act.

A Good Faith Attempt for Transparency

On October 16, 2023, Senator Ted Cruz sent a letter to Mayorkas demanding answers about why RFK Jr.’s requests were denied and why the decision-making process was so delayed. This was one of the few public attempts by lawmakers to hold the administration accountable.

President Biden’s Decision in July 2024

The situation reached a turning point on July 15, 2024, when President Biden directed Mayorkas to provide Kennedy with Secret Service protection. This decision came after months of public and political pressure, as well as an attempted assassination on President Trump. Notably, this decision further disproved the claim that polling thresholds were an immovable requirement.

What This Reveals About the Process

The delays in granting Kennedy protection raise serious questions about the transparency and fairness of the process. The 2020 email confirms that the decision could have been made unilaterally by the Secret Service Director, the advisory committee, or through a presidential directive. Despite these multiple avenues, key officials and the committee failed to act promptly, leaving Kennedy without protection for over a year with credible threats.

It certainly was not about being outside of 120 days before the election. Bernie Sanders received SS 279 days before the 2016 election, Benjamin Carson received SS 362 days before the election, and Barack Obama 551 days before the 2008 election. A candidate has never been denied Secret Service protection who asked for it before. Why was RFK Jr the first?

Of course the answers have been hidden due since the information “would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions, or would disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions fi such disclosure could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law.” At least, that’s what the government says.

Conclusion

The claim that RFK Jr. didn’t qualify for Secret Service protection due to polling thresholds doesn’t hold up under scrutiny. The law does not mandate polling requirements, and key officials had the discretion to approve his protection at any time. The delays not only placed a presidential candidate at unnecessary risk but also exposed a lack of accountability in the system.

Reality: Robert F. Kennedy Jr. ate a goat in Patagonia while news sources claim he ate a dog in Korea. RFK Jr. put these rumors to bed.

The Source of the Story

In early July, Vanity Fair posted an article claiming that RFK Jr. ate a dog and that a veterinarian had confirmed that. Other news sources quickly picked up the story, like the New York Post, and spread this misinformation.

What RFK Jr. Had to Say:

“You know they did this story that I ate a dog and they have a picture of me supposedly eating a dog. I, of course, it’s not a dog and they said I was eating a dog in Korea and that they had checked with experts , meta data experts, and identified it as Korea and checked with veterinarians who who validated that it was a dog. It’s a goat and it’s in Patagonia.”

RFK Jr also posted a humerous video about the situation to his social media: https://x.com/RobertKennedyJr/status/1810106227101519960

Conclusion

Once again the main stream media has broken the trust of the people by running stories that are full of information. That is why we try to keep you informed here at Kennedy Debunked and we always tell you to independently verify information.

In discussions surrounding mental health and violence, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has been misrepresented as claiming that antidepressants cause school shootings. In reality, he has pointed out the black box warning of antidepressants and called for additional studies.

RFK Jr.’s Statements on Antidepressants

During a recent interview with Dr. Phil, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. expressed concerns about the potential link between antidepressants, specifically SSRIs (Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors) and benzodiazepines, and violent behavior. Here is what he said:

“You mentioned the school shootings. When the Columbine shooting happened, I think five families brought lawsuits against the maker of Prozac, which had just been released. But there have been many, many articles since then and a lot of evidence that some of these mass shootings that we’re seeing in this country may be related to this new class of drugs—SSRIs and benzos. Those drugs have a black box warning on them that says they cause homicidal and suicidal behavior.”

It is essential to understand that Kennedy is not making a definitive claim that antidepressants cause school shootings. Instead, he is advocating for further research into the potential side effects of these medications, particularly given the FDA’s black box warning.

The Scientific Perspective

The scientific community has long debated the relationship between antidepressants and violent behavior. The FDA issued a black box warning concerning the risk of suicidality associated with the use of antidepressants in children and adolescents in 2004. However, this warning is not a conclusive statement that these medications cause violence. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) states:

“The FDA has issued a black box warning concerning the risk of suicidality associated with the use of antidepressants in children and adolescents from 2004. Despite this fact, whether or not antidepressants truly increase suicidality is up for debate because depression itself is associated with an increased risk of suicide.”

This underscores the complexity of the issue. Depression, the condition being treated by these medications, is itself linked to an increased risk of suicide. The black box warning serves as a precaution, not a definitive causal link.

The Need for Further Research

RFK Jr.’s call for more research is both reasonable and necessary. Understanding the full range of effects of antidepressants, especially in vulnerable populations like children and adolescents, is crucial for developing safe and effective treatment protocols.

RFK Jr has said repeatedly that he will change his views if new data is presented to him. All he is asking for is credible research free from big-pharma’s influence.

Conclusion

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. does not claim that antidepressants cause school shootings. He advocates for more research into the potential side effects of these medications, especially given the FDA’s black box warning. Understanding the complex relationship between mental health treatment and behavior requires careful study and balanced discussion. It is crucial to approach this topic with the nuance and sensitivity it deserves, avoiding the pitfalls of oversimplification and misrepresentation.

We all agree that every school shooting is a tragedy and we should join together to find the cause to them to prevent further harm.

Mainstream media, including CNN, has portrayed Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as a proponent of vaccine misinformation and accused him of making antisemitic remarks regarding Covid-19. However, the media refuses to report the context of his statement and the fact that he was talking about an NIH funded study.

Claim 1: Kennedy’s Remarks About Covid-19 Were Antisemitic

What CNN Reported:
CNN and other media outlets reported that Robert F. Kennedy Jr. made antisemitic remarks by suggesting that Covid-19 was engineered to spare Ashkenazi Jews and Chinese people. During a congressional hearing, Congresswoman Schultz echoed this sentiment, accusing Kennedy of spreading a baseless conspiracy theory.

Kennedy’s Response:
Kennedy clarified under oath that he was referencing a study funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and was not promoting a conspiracy theory. He stated that his remarks were taken out of context and misrepresented by the media.

The Study in Question:
The study Kennedy referred to can be found here. The research indicates that a specific genetic variant, ACE2-K26R, which is more frequent in the Ashkenazi Jewish population, may decrease the electrostatic attraction between SARS-CoV-2 and the ACE2 receptor. This scientific finding was discussed in a private setting where Kennedy was assured that no recording devices were allowed. He later told CNN that he would have never said those remarks knowing they were going to be taken out of context like they were. Kennedy told CNN, “I wish I hadn’t said them, you know. What I said was true, the only reason I wouldn’t talk publicly about this … is that I know that there’s people out there who are antisemitic and can misuse any information.”

Context and Misrepresentation:
The media’s portrayal of Kennedy’s remarks as antisemitic neglects the context in which they were made. He was discussing a legitimate scientific study and not endorsing any conspiracy theory. The selective reporting by outlets like CNN has contributed to a misunderstanding of Kennedy’s intentions and statements and, in bad faith, interfered in the election process.

Claim 2: Kennedy is a Leading Proponent of Vaccine Misinformation

What CNN Reported:
CNN and other media sources have labeled Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as a leading proponent of vaccine misinformation. This characterization has been used to discredit his views and public statements on vaccines and public health.

Kennedy’s Advocacy:
Kennedy has been a vocal advocate for vaccine safety and transparency. He has raised concerns about vaccine ingredients, the regulatory processes, and potential conflicts of interest between pharmaceutical companies and regulatory agencies. Kennedy’s stance is often misrepresented as being entirely anti-vaccine, whereas he emphasizes the need for safer vaccines and informed consent. It is important to note that Kennedy has stated that he will not take anyone’s vaccines away.

The Broader Issue:
The label of “vaccine misinformation” is frequently used to dismiss legitimate concerns and criticisms of the pharmaceutical industry and regulatory practices. Kennedy’s advocacy for vaccine safety should be seen in the context of promoting public health and ensuring that vaccines are safe and effective for all individuals. This is no different from his public health stance on other medicines and even getting rid of harmful chemicals in our food and water.

Conclusion

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has been unfairly characterized by mainstream media as promoting antisemitic ideas and spreading vaccine misinformation. By examining the context of his statements and the scientific research he referenced, it becomes clear that these claims are based on selective reporting and misrepresentation. Kennedy’s commitment to vaccine safety and transparency reflects a broader concern for public health, and his efforts should be understood in this light.

Reality: Kennedy’s focus is on the potential endocrine-disrupting effects of chemicals like atrazine, which the CDC themselves have issued a Public Health Statement saying, “atrazine is commonly found in the water collected from drinking water,” and “atrazine can affect your health is by altering the way that the reproductive system works.” He did not say it is causing kids to turn transgender, he simply repeated what the CDC, NIH, and others have noted in the scientific literature.

The Origin of the Claim

The assertion that Robert F. Kennedy Jr. believes water is turning children transgender stems from comments he made during an interview with Jordan Peterson. In the interview, Kennedy discussed the impact of environmental chemicals on children’s health, particularly the role of endocrine disruptors like atrazine. Watch the interview on Rumble Here or listen on Spotify Here. The frog study Kennedy refers to is an NIH published study here.

“I see these huge levels of depression and despair, loneliness in kids. I don’t think there’s a single cause to it. I think blaming it on depression about climate is probably over simplistic. In fact, I think a lot of the problems we see in kids, and particularly in boys, it is probably underappreciated how much of that is coming from chemical exposures. Including a lot of the sexual dysphoria that we’re seeing. These kids are being overwhelmed by a tsunami, I mean they’re swimming through a soup of toxic chemicals today, and many of those are endocrine disruptors. There is atrazine throughout our water supply. Atrazine, by the way, if you put atrazine in a tank full of frogs, it will chemically castrate and forcibly feminize every frog in there. 10% of the male frogs will turn into fully viable females able to produce viable eggs. If it’s doing that to frogs, there is a lot of other evidence that it is doing it to human beings as well.”

The Propaganda

This is what media outlets like CNN and The New York Times had to say:

“Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has a history of repeatedly sharing unfounded conspiracies that man-made chemicals in the environment could be making children gay or transgender and causing the feminization of boys and masculinization of girls.” – CNN

“But no evidence exists to indicate that the chemical, typically used on farms to kill weeds, causes the same effects in humans, let alone gender dysphoria.” – The New York Times

Now let’s look at what the CDC and NIH have to say.

What the CDC and NIH have to say:

Kennedy’s statements were focused on the potential health effects of environmental pollutants like atrazine, a widely used herbicide known to be an endocrine disruptor. The CDC acknowledges that atrazine can persist in water sources and has been linked to reproductive system alterations in animals. The CDC also notes:

“Any atrazine that is washed from the soil into streams and other bodies of water will stay there for a long time, because breakdown of the chemical is slow in rivers and lakes. It will also persist for a long time in groundwater. This is one reason why atrazine is commonly found in the water collected from drinking water wells in some agricultural regions.”

“One of the primary ways that atrazine can affect your health is by altering the way that the reproductive system works. Studies of couples living on farms that use atrazine for weed control found an increase in the risk of pre-term delivery. These studies are difficult to interpret because most of the farmers were men who may have been exposed to several types of pesticides. Atrazine has been shown to cause changes in blood hormone levels in animals that affected the ability to reproduce. Some of the specific effects observed in animals are not likely to occur in occur in humans because of biological differences between humans and these types of animals. However, atrazine may affect the reproductive system in humans by a different mechanism. Atrazine also caused liver, kidney, and heart damage in animals; it is possible that atrazine could cause these effects in humans, although this has not been examined.”

The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIH) confirms that endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) like atrazine can interfere with hormonal functions, leading to a variety of health issues. According to the NIH:

“Endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) are natural or human-made chemicals that may mimic, block, or interfere with the body’s hormones, which are part of the endocrine system. These chemicals are associated with a wide array of health issues.”

Forever Chemicals and Their Effects

Atrazine is not the only concern. Other chemicals, such as antidepressants, are also persistent in the environment and have been found in water sources. According to the NIH, antidepressants are considered PFAS or commonly known as “forever chemicals.” This study says, “high concentration of antidepressants was detected in the raw and treated wastewater.” The NIH notes an adverse effect; “SSRIs are well-known to impair sexual function while they are being taken.”

RFK Jr. Wants to do the Science

To summarize the findings, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is correct that Atrazine is found in water and that it has potential harmful health effects. Not only that, many other forever chemicals, such as SSRI’s, are also known to cause sexual dysfunction among other side effects. These chemicals have either not been studied in humans or studied very little. They certainly have not been studied to see how they react together in the human body over time.

Kennedy consistently advocates for thorough, independent scientific studies on the effects of environmental pollutants, free from corporate influence.

Kennedy/Shanahan Policy on These Chemicals

The claim that RFK Jr. says our water is turning kids transgender is a gross misrepresentation of his actual stance. Kennedy is focused on the potential endocrine-disrupting effects of chemicals like atrazine and advocates for thorough scientific research to understand their impact on human health. His focus is on ending the chronic disease epidemic which starts with good science. This also goes hand in hand with his environmental policy since he wants to clean up these forever chemicals up from our water and food supply.

As always, it is crucial to look beyond sensational headlines and consider the full context and scientific evidence before forming conclusions.

Reality: Official records from the Federal Election Commission (FEC) show no donations from AIPAC to Kennedy’s campaign or any PAC supporting him.

Understanding the FEC Website

The Federal Election Commission (FEC) is an independent regulatory agency that oversees the financing of federal elections in the United States. The FEC provides public access to a comprehensive database of campaign contributions, including details of all donations made to political candidates and committees. This database allows anyone to search for and verify contributions by specific organizations or individuals to various campaigns.

The Evidence

A review of the FEC’s official records clearly shows that Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and any PACs supporting him have not received any contributions from AIPAC. The screenshot from the FEC website displays the filtered results for campaign contributions for the 2023-2024 election cycle, specifically looking for donations from AIPAC to Kennedy-related entities. As illustrated, there is no data available, confirming that no such contributions exist.

Conclusion

The claim that RFK Jr. is funded by AIPAC is false. According to the official FEC records, neither Robert F. Kennedy Jr. nor any associated PAC has received money from AIPAC. This debunks the narrative that AIPAC is financially supporting Kennedy’s campaign. Always verify such claims against reliable sources like the FEC to avoid misinformation.