President-elect Donald Trump said he’s open to getting rid of vaccines depending on Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s review of their safety.

Trump’s comments to Time magazine contradict promises previously made by Kennedy, who is Trump’s choice to lead the Department of Health and Human Services and has long been skeptical of vaccines widely considered to be safe and effective. Last month, Kennedy told NBC he would not take vaccines away from anyone who wants them.

But Trump said in an interview with Time released Thursday that he might get rid of some vaccines if he thinks they’re “dangerous” or “not beneficial” after working with Kennedy to review evidence on them.

“I’m going to be listening to Bobby, who I’ve really gotten along with great and I have a lot of respect for having to do with food, having to do with vaccinations,” Trump said. “I don’t think it’s going to be very controversial in the end.”

Why it matters: Public health and medical experts have heralded widespread vaccinations as lifesaving for a huge number of Americans who would have otherwise died of infectious diseases. Health leaders have been concerned that Kennedy’s skepticism might fuel public distrust that could lower vaccination rates, but the prospect of taking shots off the market could have a much larger impact.

The comments could also matter for Kennedy, who will likely be quizzed by senators on his views on vaccines — and perhaps more importantly, how those views might change federal policy. Some in Kennedy’s orbit have tried to clear up his views leading up to meetings on Blue Light News, but Trump’s comments could complicate that messaging.

What’s next? Kennedy is headed to Capitol Hill next week to meet with senators about his confirmation as HHS secretary.

The tech billionaires are fighting for Donald Trump’s attention. At least, that’s what it looks like.

Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, donated $1 million to the president-elect’s inaugural fund, the company confirmed to Blue Light News on Thursday. And this morning, it seemed like fellow billionaire Elon Musk has taken issue with its CEO, Mark Zuckerberg’s potential involvement in the new administration.

“Concerning,” Musk said on X, responding to a post from conservative commentator Ashley St. Clair claiming — without evidence — that Meta is “actively censoring conservatives right now.” While it’s unclear exactly what Musk was referring to, the original post St. Clair was responding to was a video of a suited up Zuckerberg wakesurfing with an American flag announcing the $1 million donation from an account titled “DogeDesigner.”

It’s not unusual for corporations to contribute to presidential inaugurations, but neither Zuckerberg nor Meta donated to Trump’s inaugural fund in 2017, or to President Biden’s fund in 2021.

The tech giant’s donation comes just weeks after Zuckerberg visited Mar-a-Lago to dine with Trump — an additional attempt from the company to mend relations with the Republican party’s MAGA wing after he banned the then-former president from the platform in 2021. Trump’s accounts have since been restored.

Trump and Zuckerberg’s fraught relationship is well documented. In Trump’s book, “Save America,” released in September, he claimed that Zuckerberg plotted against him during the 2020 election and that the Meta CEO would “spend the rest of his life in prison” if he did it again. In July, Trump wrote in a post on Truth Social that if elected, he would pursue “ELECTION FRAUDSTERS at levels never seen before, and they will be sent to prison for long periods of time. We already know who you are,” before directly addressing Zuckerberg. “DON’T DO IT! ZUCKERBUCKS, be careful!”

Meta spokesperson Andy Stone declined to comment on Musk’s post. Spokespeople for Musk via X did not immediately respond for comment.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski said Thursday she felt “more comfortable” with no party label than with “an identity as a Republican,” an escalation of the Alaska senator’s occasional bucking of her party as the chamber readies itself for a slew of confirmation battles over Trump administration nominees.

“I’m not attached to a label, I’d rather be that ‘no label.’ I’d rather be that person that is just known for trying to do right by the state and the people that I serve, regardless of party, and I’m totally good and comfortable with that,” Murkowski said during a discussion hosted by the centrist group No Labels at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington.

Later on during the discussion, Murkowski clarified that she is “still a Republican” and has “never shed my party label.”

“We’ve got a system in the Senate where there are two sides of the aisle, and I have to sit on one side or I have to sit on the other,” she added.

Murkowski, who has served as a Republican senator from Alaska since 2003, has occasionally defied her party and criticized its members’ willingness to kowtow to President-elect Donald Trump.

“I don’t think I’ve made any secret of the fact that I’m more of a Ronald Reagan Republican than I am a Trump Republican,” she said Thursday. “And someone said, ‘Well, you aren’t really a Republican at all.’ And I said, ‘You can call me whatever you want to call me.’”

Murkowski is seen as one of Democrats’ top hopes to block Trump’s most contentious Cabinet picks, alongside fellow centrist Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine).

On Thursday, Murkowski predicted “it’s going to be hard in these next four years” because the Trump administration’s “approach is going to be: Everybody tow the line. Everybody line up. We got you here, and if you want to survive, you better be good. Don’t get on Santa’s naughty list here, because we will primary you.”

She pointed specifically to Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), whose swing vote could sink Pete Hegseth’s bid to run the Pentagon.

Despite being “one of the more conservative, principled Republican leaders in the Senate right now,” Murkowski said, Republicans are slamming Ernst “for not being good enough” — and she said she is worried the Iowa senator could be primaried.