How a purge at one obscure panel could disrupt US vaccinations
On Monday, Kennedy, long a vaccine skeptic,
Get Starting Point
A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday.
Enter Email
Sign Up
On the social platform X, he promised not to replace the panel's experts with 'ideological anti-vaxxers.' On Wednesday, Kennedy
Advertisement
For years, Kennedy has argued that American children receive too many shots and has falsely claimed that vaccines are not tested in placebo-controlled studies. Critics fear he is now setting the stage for a rollback of federal recommendations.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Secretary of Health and Human Services, testifies on Capitol Hill in Washington, May 14, 2025.
HAIYUN JIANG/NYT
'I'm very, very worried about young children in this country,' said Dr. Helen Chu, professor of medicine at the University of Washington and one of the committee members who was fired. If the panel's new members 'don't believe in vaccines, then I think it puts us in a very dangerous place.'
Advertisement
Richard Hughes IV, who teaches vaccine law at George Washington University, predicted that the new committee would move to pare back the childhood vaccination schedule 'relatively quickly.'
The Department of Health and Human Services did not respond to a request for comment.
'All of these individuals are committed to evidence-based medicine, gold-standard science, and common sense,' Kennedy said in a message on X. 'They have each committed to demanding definitive safety and efficacy data before making any new vaccine recommendations.'
He also acknowledged that the panel would 'review safety and efficacy data for the current schedule as well.'
The upheaval arrives as measles infections approach the highest level in decades; whooping cough has risen significantly, too, compared with this time last year. Steep cuts to global immunization programs also make it more likely that infectious diseases, such as polio, may reach American shores.
Alarmed, members of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform have asked Kennedy to provide all communications and documents related to the dismissal of the committee and a 'detailed description of the rationale for removing each individual' by June 24, according to a letter obtained by The New York Times.
The American Medical Association called for an immediate reversal of the purge and resolved to 'identify and evaluate' alternative sources of advice on vaccines.
It is unclear whether Kennedy will appoint more members -- there is no required minimum -- before the next scheduled meeting at the end of June. And no one can say whether or how the decisions of the reshaped panel may diverge from current recommendations.
Advertisement
But any softening of federal recommendations regarding vaccination would ripple through the nation in unpredictable ways. Access to the shots eventually may depend on where you live, which insurance policy you hold and which doctor you see, experts said.
'That obviously is going to decrease the number of people who are protected with these vaccines,' said Dr. Mysheika Roberts, the health commissioner of Columbus, Ohio. 'I am concerned about what that means about herd immunity, what that means about outbreaks and infections.'
Under the Affordable Care Act, insurance companies are required to cover the cost of any vaccine recommended by the ACIP. Losing that endorsement means that some insurance companies may choose not to pay for immunizations.
Nor could those shots be offered for free through the Vaccines for Children program. The measles vaccine can cost up to $250 and the four-dose polio series up to $340.
'You'd essentially have a two-tier system where people who have cash at hand can purchase their own vaccines if they're not recommended, and those who don't have the money may have to go without,' said Dr. Yvonne Maldonado, a pediatrician at Stanford University and one of the fired panelists.
The panel could take a more measured approach, perhaps advising that a doctor's sign-off should be required for some immunizations. The vaccines program would still cover it, but reimbursement from private insurers would be more difficult to enforce, Hughes said.
The Vaccines for Children program was created after a measles epidemic from 1989 to 1991 led to tens of thousands of cases and hundreds of deaths. More than half of the infected children were unvaccinated even though many had seen a doctor, because they could not afford the shots, according to the CDC.
Advertisement
Cutting back on free access to immunizations 'is not a strategy to even think about -- only vaccinating potentially the half of the population that has health insurance,' Chu said. If measles continues to resurge, for example, even vaccinated people will be at risk, she said.
Vaccinations are not profitable for clinics, and reduced demand could mean that fewer places bother to offer the shots. 'In places where you know there's a large anti-vax sentiment, there may not be financial incentive, or any incentive, to keep those vaccines in stock,' she said.
ACIP makes recommendations for immunizations. But the authority to mandate them rests with the states.
Even if the federal government walked away from some recommendations, most, if not all, states are likely to maintain the current mandates for school-age children, said Claire Hannan, executive director of the Association of Immunization Managers, which represents state and local officials.
'Even where legislators are chipping away at requirements and mandates, there's a commitment to protect children,' she said.
Still, she added, 'our members are very confused.'
Now some scientists are considering establishing alternatives to federal guidance on vaccines. 'The new ACIP cannot be trusted to oversee unbiased and scientifically sound vaccine policy development,' said Michael Osterholm, a public health researcher at the University of Minnesota.
He and other experts have formed a new group, called the Vaccine Integrity Project, to offer science-based advice on immunization.
Members of the ACIP are usually vetted thoroughly. It took more than four months for Roberts, who was set to join the panel in July, to be accepted, and several more weeks to fill out at least 50 forms, including disclosures of conflict of interest. The committee's members typically rotate in staggered four-year terms to ensure some continuity and institutional memory.
Advertisement
Mina Zadeh, a CDC scientist, has been named to oversee the committee, but the rest of her team has not been set up. Staff members who lead the committee's work groups may meet with her 'starting early next week,' according to a recording of an internal meeting obtained by the Times.
But the panel's next meeting is scheduled to begin June 25. Dr. Adam Ratner, a pediatric infectious diseases physician and expert on vaccine policy, said he worried the new members could not be prepared on such short notice and without the help of previous members or CDC personnel.
'This raises the question of whether the goal here is for ACIP to be able to do its job,' he added. 'Kennedy has accused the prior committee members of conflicts of interest and for rubber-stamping things, but I think that's exactly what we're looking at with this group.'
This article originally appeared in
.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Atlantic
3 hours ago
- Atlantic
A Very Different Anniversary Celebration
As tanks roll through Washington today to mark the U.S. Army's 250th birthday—and the 79th birthday of President Donald Trump—Europe is commemorating a different anniversary, not with combat vehicles but with a passenger liner moored near a riverbank. Dignitaries from across Europe are gathering in Schengen, a riparian village in Luxembourg, to celebrate the creation of an international agreement to abolish controls at their countries' common borders. The agreement, signed on June 14, 1985, turned the little-known village into a landmark of European integration; today, Schengen is synonymous with the experiment the agreement spawned—an area of borderless travel that has grown to encompass 29 nations and more than 450 million people. The anniversary celebration in Schengen features artifacts of the treaty-making process, including the MS Princesse Marie-Astrid, the refurbished cruise ship where diplomats from the five original signatory states—France, West Germany, Belgium, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands—convened on the Moselle River to dismantle border controls. Their aims were practical: The Schengen Agreement was intended to make life more convenient for people—to send a message to workers and vacationers to 'pass, pass, pass,' as one of the signers told me during research for my book about Schengen. 'In principle, you can pass; and we presume that you're honest.' But the agreement took on greater symbolic meaning. Schengen embodied the values of liberal internationalism that were ascendant at the so-called end of history, fulfilling the promise of a community of nations where people, goods, capital, and information all would circulate freely. If the Abrams tank is the key symbol of American military might on display today in Washington, the passenger ship anchored in Schengen showcases a very different vision of the international order, one premised on mobility, connection, and cross-border exchange—on the right 'to travel, to migrate, to circulate, to receive and be received,' as one Senegalese migrant in Paris put it in the years after Schengen's founding. Of course, both visions are legacies of the defeat of fascism and the end of the Cold War: a strong United States that vanquished enemies of freedom, a peaceful Europe where erstwhile adversaries worked to eradicate borders that once stood as battle lines. For a time, these visions coexisted. Now they seem to be coming apart. That's all too clear in the contempt that senior members of the Trump administration have expressed for longtime allies; the defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, called Europe 'PATHETIC' in a private chat on the Signal messaging app. It's also clear in the administration's escalating crackdown on immigration, and in the deployment of Marines in response to protests in Los Angeles. The vision of free movement animating Schengen is not one shared by Stephen Miller, to say the least. But Schengen is a peculiar creation, in a way befitting our disorienting times. As I explore in my book, the agreement hardly envisioned unrestricted mobility. Instead, it paired the free movement of European citizens with the exclusion of unwanted outsiders, termed 'undesirable' and ranked according to the level of risk they posed to Europe. The agreement assigned participating nations new responsibilities to police the Schengen Area's borders. And it gave them the authority to reintroduce internal controls in the event of a serious threat to 'public policy' or national security. T. H. Breen: Trump's un-American parade Nations have done so repeatedly over the past decade, since Europe was jolted by the arrival of an estimated 1.3 million asylum seekers in 2015. A series of deadly terrorist attacks added to the impetus to crack down. Unrelenting emergencies over the past five years—the coronavirus pandemic, Russia's war in Ukraine, and spasms of violence in the Middle East—have put still more pressure on European states to step up border checks. Recently, Germany vowed to maintain controls at all nine of its land borders, citing 'high levels of irregular migration and migrant smuggling,' as well as the country's strained asylum system and the 'global security situation.' The Netherlands closed its borders in part because of the 'pressure on public services' from an influx of migrants and asylum seekers. Multiple Nordic countries, meanwhile, point to the threat of Russian sabotage, among other destabilizing cross-border activities, to justify renewed border checks. Yet 40 years on, the Schengen Agreement is so interwoven into the fabric of European life that nations no longer have the resources or logistical capabilities necessary to seal their borders. There are border checks, at least in some places, but moves to reintroduce controls on a large scale have been mostly symbolic. And for all the opposition to mass migration, which has fueled far-right politics on both sides of the Atlantic, the free movement of people and goods remains one of the European Union's most popular policies. Perhaps that reflects Schengen's origins as an innovation designed to improve everyday life, not a show of force or revolutionary transformation. Or perhaps it reveals that values of peace and pluralism are still deeply held by large parts of Western society. Both, in fact, define the view of Robert Goebbels, who, as Luxembourg's delegate to the negotiations 40 years ago, helped draft the agreement and chose Schengen as the site of the signing ceremony. I wrote to Goebbels, who has since gone on to serve as a government minister and then a member of the European Parliament, on the eve of today's twin anniversary celebrations. Schengen, he told me, is a 'peace project,' binding nations once engaged in bloody conflict and 'offering liberties and well-being to 450 million Europeans.' Trump, meanwhile, 'celebrates himself.'
4 hours ago
Marines temporarily detain man while guarding LA federal building
LOS ANGELES -- Shortly after they began guarding a Los Angeles federal building Friday, U.S. Marines detained a man who had walked onto the property and did not immediately hear their commands to stop. The brief detention marked the first time federal troops have detained a civilian since they were deployed to the nation's second-largest city by President Donald Trump in response to protests over the administration's immigration arrests. The Marines were activated earlier this week but began their duties Friday. The man, Marcos Leao, was later released without charges and said the Marines were just doing their jobs. A U.S. Army North spokesperson said the troops have the authority to temporarily detain people under specific circumstances. He said those detentions end when the person can be transferred to 'appropriate civilian law enforcement personnel.' Leao's detention shows how the troops' deployment is putting them closer to carrying out law enforcement actions. Already, National Guard soldiers have been providing security on raids as Trump has promised as part of his immigration crackdown. Leao, a former Army combat engineer, said he was rushing to get to a Veterans Affairs appointment when he stepped past a piece of caution tape outside the federal building. He looked up to find a Marine sprinting toward him. 'I had my headphones in, so I didn't hear them,' Leao said. 'They told me to get down on the ground. I basically complied with everything they were saying.' Leao was placed in zip ties and held for more than two hours by the Marines and members of the National Guard, he said. After Los Angeles police arrived, he was released without charges, he said. A spokesperson for the Los Angeles Police Department said they responded to a call at the scene but weren't needed, and no charges were filed. 'I didn't know it was going to be this intense here," he said later. A U.S. official told the AP that a civilian had stepped over the line. He was warned they would take him down and they did, according to the official, who requested anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter. About 200 Marines out of the 700 deployed arrived in the city Friday, joining 2,000 members of the National Guard that have been stationed outside federal buildings this week in Los Angeles. Another 2,000 Guard members were notified of deployment earlier this week. Before the unusual deployment, the Pentagon scrambled to establish rules to guide U.S. Marines who could be faced with the rare and difficult prospect of using force against citizens on American soil. The forces have been trained in de-escalation, crowd control and standing rules for the use of force, the military has said. But the use of the active-duty forces still raises difficult questions. 'I believe that this is an inevitable precursor of things yet to come when you put troops with guns right next to civilians who are doing whatever they do,' said Gary Solis, a former Marine Corps. prosecutor and military judge. He said it's an example of Trump's attempt to unravel the Posse Comitatus Act, which bars active-duty forces from conducting law enforcement.
Hamilton Spectator
5 hours ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Doug Ford returning to U.S. to fight Donald Trump's tariffs
Premier Doug Ford and his counterparts from the Atlantic provinces are headed stateside to promote trade with New England governors. Ford, who quietly met with Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp last week at Queen's Park, has been stepping up the lobbying of U.S. leaders against President Donald Trump's tariffs on Canadian goods. 'You can keep tariffing everything, but it's hurting the American people,' the premier told a Toronto business conference last Monday. That's a reference to the fact that U.S. companies importing products from Canada are already passing along their higher costs to consumers. Ford also noted Ontario alone does $500 billion in annual two-way trade with the U.S., and the province is the largest trading partner with 17 of America's 50 states. 'I've had an opportunity to speak to many governors and senators and congresspeople — Republicans or Democrats … (and) every single person I speak to says we can't pick a fight with everyone in the world — and especially you can't pick a fight with your number-one customer,' he said. 'We need to move on.' Along with another wave of appearances on American cable news shows to underscore the importance of trade with Canada, the premier is moving to further strengthen ties with state governors. To that end, Ford, Nova Scotia Premier Tim Houston, New Brunswick Premier Susan Holt, Newfoundland and Labrador Premier John Hogan and Prince Edward Island Premier Rob Lantz will be in Boston on Monday. The premiers will be meeting with Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey, Maine Gov. Janet Mills, Rhode Island Gov. Dan McKee, Vermont Gov. Phil Scott and Connecticut Gov. Ned Lamont. During last winter's provincial election campaign, which the governing Progressive Conservatives successfully framed as a referendum on which party could best deal with Trump, Ford twice visited Washington, D.C., to lobby U.S. lawmakers.
