FDA Chief Counsel Hilary Perkins Resigns After Two Days in Role

Swift Exit Sparks Political Controversy

Hilary Perkins, recently appointed as the chief counsel for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, has resigned from her position just two days after her appointment was announced, triggering widespread speculation and political debate. The FDA confirmed her departure through a succinct post on the social media platform X, stating that Perkins stepped down effective immediately. This abrupt resignation has drawn attention to the intersection of legal expertise, political pressure, and the ongoing battle over abortion pill regulations in the United States, particularly as it unfolded under the scrutiny of the Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees the FDA. The rapid sequence of events, coupled with the removal of her appointment announcement from official HHS records, underscores the volatile environment surrounding FDA leadership transitions in 2025.

Perkins’ appointment as FDA chief counsel was publicized as part of a broader reorganization effort spearheaded by HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., aimed at aligning the agency with the administration’s public health priorities. With a robust legal background, Perkins joined the Department of Justice in 2019, serving in the consumer protection division where she notably defended mifepristone, a medication central to medical abortions. Her experience made her a significant figure in legal battles over reproductive rights, a topic that remains highly contentious, especially with Republican-led states challenging the drug’s accessibility. However, this very experience became the catalyst for her swift exit. Within hours of her resignation, Republican Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri took to X to criticize Martin Makary, President Donald Trump’s nominee for FDA Commissioner, for selecting Perkins, accusing him of attempting to place a “Biden abortion lawyer” in a top FDA leadership role. Hawley’s subsequent post, expressing satisfaction at her resignation, strongly suggests that political backlash played a pivotal role in her decision to step down.

The timing of Perkins’ resignation aligns closely with Makary’s nomination, adding layers of complexity to the situation. Makary, still awaiting Senate confirmation, has publicly committed to reviewing the FDA’s risk mitigation data on mifepristone, a stance that hints at a potential shift in policy under the Trump administration. Perkins’ prior defense of the drug during the Biden era positioned her as a lightning rod for criticism from anti-abortion advocates, particularly as the FDA faces mounting pressure from conservative states seeking to restrict abortion medication access. The HHS’s decision to scrub her appointment from its Tuesday announcement further fuels speculation that her resignation was a strategic retreat to avoid escalating tensions within the administration and among its political allies. Neither the FDA nor Perkins responded immediately to requests for comment, leaving the official reason for her departure unconfirmed, though the political context offers a compelling narrative.

Delving deeper into Perkins’ career provides additional insight into why her appointment stirred such controversy. Before joining the DOJ, she worked at a prominent Washington, D.C. law firm, honing her expertise in regulatory and consumer protection law. Her tenure at the DOJ, spanning both Trump and Biden administrations, included high-stakes litigation that intersected with public health policy, notably her work on mifepristone. This drug, approved by the FDA decades ago, has become a focal point in the national debate over abortion rights, with ongoing legal challenges questioning its safety and regulatory oversight. Perkins’ role as chief counsel would have placed her at the heart of advising the FDA commissioner on such matters, making her appointment a bold choice amid the current political climate. Yet, this same boldness appears to have precipitated her rapid departure, as her past advocacy clashed with the priorities of influential figures like Senator Hawley, who wields significant sway in Republican circles.

The broader implications of this event ripple through the FDA and HHS, raising questions about the agency’s autonomy and the vetting process for its leadership. The reorganization effort, which saw Robert Foster transition from FDA chief counsel to a newly created Chief Counsel for Food, Research, and Drugs role, was intended to streamline oversight and enhance accountability. However, Perkins’ two-day tenure suggests that political alignment may outweigh legal qualifications in shaping the FDA’s future direction. Reports from industry analysts indicate that the HHS could be tightening its grip on the FDA, potentially reducing the agency’s independence as it navigates contentious issues like abortion pill regulations and public health policy. This incident also highlights the challenges of appointing officials with bipartisan experience in an era of heightened polarization, where past actions can quickly become liabilities.

For those tracking FDA leadership changes, this episode serves as a case study in how swiftly political currents can alter administrative trajectories. Perkins’ resignation, while brief in duration, leaves a lasting imprint on discussions about the intersection of law, science, and politics within the agency. Her exit underscores the delicate balance required to lead the FDA, particularly as it faces scrutiny over its handling of reproductive health medications and other high-profile regulatory decisions. As Makary’s confirmation process unfolds, the fallout from this event may influence how future appointees are selected and vetted, with an eye toward avoiding similar controversies. The absence of an official statement from Perkins herself keeps the door open for further speculation, but the sequence of events points unmistakably to the power of political pressure in shaping the FDA’s leadership landscape in 2025.