As of August 28, 2026, the FDA lists Kyle A. Diamantas, J.D., as acting commissioner. The agency’s leadership roster lists the principal deputy commissioner position as vacant and shows several other senior posts under acting leadership.

Overton must be reviewed and confirmed by the U.S. Senate before she can become commissioner. Until that happens, the nomination itself does not change FDA rules governing vaccines, medicines, food safety, tobacco products, medical devices or abortion medication.

What Trump announced

Trump announced Overton’s nomination on August 19. She is a physician and deputy director of the White House Domestic Policy Council who has worked on several of the administration’s health initiatives.

Associated Press reporting said Overton has been involved in administration efforts involving vaccine policy and drug prices. She also appeared with Trump and Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. at an August 10 White House event involving an executive order on childhood vaccines.

Trump said he wants Overton to pursue faster cures, increased innovation, clinical-trial changes and lower drug prices. Those are administration priorities, not completed FDA policy changes.

What the FDA currently shows

The FDA’s official commissioner page identifies Diamantas as acting commissioner. Before taking that role, he led the agency’s Human Foods Program and oversaw food-safety and nutrition activities.

The FDA leadership roster lists the principal deputy commissioner position as vacant. The agency’s organization chart also identifies acting leaders for the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, the Center for Tobacco Products, the Office of External Affairs and the Human Foods Program.

The official pages therefore show an agency with a nominee for its top job but an interim leadership structure in place. Those vacancies and acting assignments do not, by themselves, establish that FDA decisions have been delayed or that consumers face a specific safety problem.

What happens next in the Senate

Overton’s nomination is expected to face scrutiny from the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. The process can include written questions, a public hearing and committee consideration before a possible vote. A confirmation vote by the full Senate would be required for Overton to take the job permanently.

Committee Chairman Bill Cassidy, a Republican from Louisiana and a physician, has raised concerns about Overton’s management experience, staffing and morale at the FDA, and her participation in the administration’s vaccine executive order. Democratic lawmakers have also criticized the nomination.

As of August 27, Axios reported that the committee had not yet received Overton’s paperwork. The report said a confirmation hearing before November was not expected, but that timing could change as the paperwork is submitted and the Senate sets its schedule.

Why the nomination matters

The FDA commissioner oversees an agency whose decisions affect patients, health professionals, consumers and companies nationwide. The next commissioner will face questions about drug approvals, vaccine policy, food regulation, tobacco products, medical devices and the administration’s efforts to lower prescription-drug prices.

Abortion medication is another issue to watch. Axios reported that Overton has previously criticized the increased use of mifepristone and called for additional safety protections. Those views could intensify political debate, but they do not amount to a new FDA action. Any change in the drug’s regulatory status would require formal agency steps.

For consumers, the immediate takeaway is limited: the FDA has a nominee but no confirmed permanent commissioner. The next concrete signals will be the nomination’s formal Senate referral, submission of Overton’s paperwork, any committee hearing, her responses to lawmakers and any committee or full-Senate vote.

Sources

• FDA Commissioner
• Associated Press nomination report
• Axios Senate and abortion-policy report

What the EAC is supposed to do

The EAC is an independent, bipartisan commission created by the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA). According to the EAC, its mission is to help election officials improve election administration and help Americans participate in the voting process.

Among the federal functions the EAC carries out:

• Developing guidance to help meet HAVA requirements
• Adopting voluntary voting system guidelines
• Serving as a national clearinghouse for election administration information
• Accrediting testing laboratories and certifying voting systems
• Auditing the use of HAVA funds
• Maintaining the national mail voter registration form

The specific HAVA-linked function at issue: testing & certification

The commissioner gap matters most for election technology oversight because one core EAC job under HAVA is its Testing and Certification Program (T&C).

The EAC describes T&C as a requirement of HAVA that assists state and local election officials by providing voting machine testing and certification. HAVA, the EAC says, mandates that the commission provides certification, decertification, and recertification of voting systems and the accreditation of voting system testing laboratories.

The EAC also says the purpose of its national voluntary certification program is to independently verify that voting systems comply with functional capability, accessibility, and security requirements established in the EAC’s voluntary voting system guidelines.

So what could change when there are no commissioners?

It’s not automatically a question of “everything stops.” Instead, the near-term question for election administrators is about which steps may require formal commission action.

In the voting system certification process described in the EAC’s FAQs, test laboratories provide recommendations, and the Certification Division, working through the Executive Director, makes the determination whether to issue a certification.

But when it comes to accrediting laboratories, the EAC’s FAQ states that after EAC review, the Commission votes on full accreditation—so some commission-level decisions may be harder to complete without confirmed members.

That’s why the practical impact of this commissioner-free period is an accountability and timing question: what can be handled through existing staff processes versus what depends on commission votes during the 2026 cycle.

What to watch next

• White House nominations to refill the EAC commissioner vacancies
• Senate confirmation actions and timelines
• Any EAC public updates clarifying what decisions can proceed during a commissioner gap and what may wait for commission-level action

Sources

• Reuters reporting (via Investing.com): July 9, 2026 Trump terminates remaining EAC members
• Roll Call: after the firings, the EAC has no members
• EAC — Voting System Testing & Certification Program (HAVA framework description)