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
.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Hamilton Spectator

36 minutes ago

• Hamilton Spectator

Trump ignites debate on presidential authority with Iran strikes and wins praise from Republicans

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump's bombardment of three sites in Iran quickly sparked debate in Congress over his authority to launch the strikes, with Republicans praising Trump for decisive action even as many Democrats warned he should have sought congressional approval. The instant divisions in the U.S. Congress reflected an already swirling debate over the president's ability to conduct such a consequential action on his own, without authorization from the House and Senate on the use of military force. While Trump is hardly the first U.S. president to go it alone, his expansive use of presidential power raised immediate questions about what comes next, and whether he is exceeding the limits of his authority. 'Well done, President Trump,' Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina posted on X. Alabama Sen. Katie Britt called the bombings 'strong and surgical.' The Senate Armed Services Committee chairman, Roger Wicker of Mississippi, said Trump 'has made a deliberate — and correct — decision to eliminate the existential threat posed by the Iranian regime.' Democrats, and a few Republicans, said the strikes were unconstitutional. House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries, who called for an immediate classified briefing for lawmakers, said that Trump 'misled the country about his intentions, failed to seek congressional authorization for the use of military force and risks American entanglement in a potentially disastrous war in the Middle East.' Some Republicans had similar concerns. Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie, a Republican and a longtime opponent of U.S. involvement in foreign wars, posted on X after Trump announced the attacks that, 'This is not Constitutional.' But the quick GOP endorsements of stepped up U.S. involvement in Iran came after Trump publicly considered the strikes for days. Many congressional Republicans had cautiously said they thought he would make the right decision. The party's schism over Iran could complicate the GOP's efforts to boost Pentagon spending as part of a $350 billion national security package in Trump's 'big, beautiful' tax breaks bill , which is speeding toward votes next week. 'We now have very serious choices ahead to provide security for our citizens and our allies,' Wicker posted on X. House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., and Senate Majority Leader John Thune both were briefed ahead of the strikes on Saturday, according to people familiar with the situation and granted anonymity to discuss it. Thune said Saturday evening that 'as we take action tonight to ensure a nuclear weapon remains out of reach for Iran, I stand with President Trump and pray for the American troops and personnel in harm's way.' Johnson said in a statement that the military operations 'should serve as a clear reminder to our adversaries and allies that President Trump means what he says.' House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rick Crawford, R-Ark., said he had also been in touch with the White House and 'I am grateful to the U.S. servicemembers who carried out these precise and successful strikes.' Breaking from many of his Democratic colleagues, Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, an outspoken supporter of Israel, also praised the attacks on Iran. 'As I've long maintained, this was the correct move by @POTUS,' he posted. 'Iran is the world's leading sponsor of terrorism and cannot have nuclear capabilities.' Both parties have seen splits in recent days over the prospect of striking Iran, including some of Trump's most ardent supporters who share his criticism of America's 'forever wars.' Republican Rep. Warren Davidson of Ohio posted that 'while President Trump's decision may prove just, it's hard to conceive a rationale that's Constitutional.' 'This is not our fight,' posted Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia. Most Democrats have maintained that Congress should have a say, even as presidents in both parties have ignored the legislative branch's constitutional authority. The Senate was scheduled to vote soon on a resolution from Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine that would require congressional approval before the U.S. declares war on Iran or takes specific military action. Kaine said the bombings were 'horrible judgment.' 'I will push for all senators to vote on whether they are for this third idiotic Middle East war,' Kaine said. Democratic Rep. Greg Casar, the chairman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, also called on Congress to immediately pass a war powers resolution. He said politicians had always promised that 'new wars in the Middle East would be quick and easy.' 'Then they sent other people's children to fight and die endlessly,' Casar said. 'Enough.' Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .

Atlantic

43 minutes ago

• Atlantic

The United States Bombed Iran. Now What?

President Donald Trump has done what he swore he would not do: involve the United States in a war in the Middle East. His supporters will tie themselves in knots (as Vice President J. D. Vance did last week) trying to jam the square peg of Trump's promises into the round hole of his actions. And many of them may avoid calling this 'war' at all, even though that's what Trump himself called it tonight. They will want to see it as a quick win against an obstinate regime that will eventually declare bygones and come to the table. But whether bombing Iran was a good idea or a bad idea—and it could turn out to be either, or both—it is war by any definition of the term, and something Trump had vowed he would avoid. So what's next? Before considering the range of possibilities, it's important to recognize how much we cannot know at this moment. The president's statement tonight was a farrago of contradictions: He said, for example, that the main Iranian nuclear sites were 'completely and totally obliterated'—but it will take time to assess the damage, and he has no way of knowing this. He claimed that the Iranian program has been destroyed—but added that there are still 'many targets' left. He said that Iran could suffer even more in the coming days—but the White House has reportedly assured Iran through backchannels that these strikes were, basically, a one-and-done, and that no further U.S. action is forthcoming. (In a strange moment, he added: 'I want to just say, we love you, God, and we love our great military.' Presidents regularly ask God to bless the American nation and its military forces—as Trump did in his next utterance—but it was a bit unnerving to see a commander in chief order a major military action and then declare how much 'we' love the Creator.) Only one outcome is certain: Hypocrisy in the region and around the world will reach galactic levels as nations wring their hands and silently pray that the B-2s carrying the bunker-buster bombs did their job. Beyond that, the most optimistic view is that the introduction of American muscle in this war will produce a humiliating end to Iran's long standing nuclear ambitions, enable more political disorder in Iran, and finally create the conditions for the fall of the mullahs. This may have been the Israeli plan from the start: Despite Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's warnings about the imminence of an Iranian nuclear weapons capability and the need to engage in preemption, this was a preventive war. The Israelis could not destroy sites such as Fordow without the Americans. Israeli military actions suggest that Netanyahu was trying to increase the chances of regime change in Tehran, while making a side bet on dragging Trump into the fray and outsourcing the tougher nuclear targets to the United States. The very worst outcome is the polar opposite of the optimistic case. In this bleak alternative, the Air Force either didn't find, or couldn't destroy, all of the key parts of the Iranian program; the Iranians then try to sprint across the finish line to a bomb. In the meantime, Tehran lashes out against U.S. targets in the region and closes the Straits of Hormuz. The Iranian opposition fades in importance as angry Iranian citizens take their government's part. One dangerous possibility in this pessimistic scenario is that the Iranians do real damage to American assets or kill a number of U.S. servicepeople, and Trump, confused and enraged, tries to widen his war against a country more than twice the size of Iraq. Perhaps the most likely outcome, however, is more mixed. The Iranian program may not be completely destroyed, but if the intelligence was accurate and the bombers hit their targets, Tehran's nuclear clock has likely been set back years. (This in itself is a good thing; whether it is worth the risks Trump has taken is another question.) The Iranian people will likely rally around the flag and the regime, but the real question is whether that effect will last. The Iranian regime will be wounded, but will likely survive; the nuclear program will be delayed, but will likely continue; the region will become more unstable but is unlikely to erupt into a full-blown war involving the United States. But plenty of wild cards are in the deck. First, as strategists and military planners always warn, the 'enemy gets a vote.' The Iranians may respond in ways the U.S. does not expect. The classic wargaming mistake is to assume that your opponent will respond in ways that fit nicely with your own plans and capabilities. But the Iranians have had a long time to think about this eventuality; they may have schemes ready that the U.S. has not foreseen. (Why not spread around radiological debris, for example, and then blame the Americans for a near-disaster?) Trump has issued a warning to Iran not to react, but what might count as 'reacting?' Second, we cannot know the subsequent effects of an American attack. For now, other Middle Eastern regimes may be relieved to see Iran's nuclear clock turned back. But if the Iranian regime survives and continues even a limited nuclear program, those same nations may sour on what they will see as an unsuccessful plan hatched in Jerusalem and carried out by Washington. Diplomacy elsewhere will likely suffer. The Russians have been pounding Ukraine with even greater viciousness than usual all week, and now may wave away the last of Trump's feckless attempts to end the war. Other nations might see American planes flying over Iran and think that the North Koreans had the right idea all along: Assemble a few crude nuclear weapons as fast as you can to deter further attempts to end your regime. Finally, the chances for misperception and accidents are now higher than they were yesterday. In 1965, the United States widened the war in Southeast Asia after two purported attacks from North Vietnam; the Americans were not sure at the time that both of them had actually happened, and as it turns out, one of them probably did not. The region, moreover, is full of opportunities for screw-ups and mistakes: If Trump continues action against Iran, he will need excellent intelligence and tight organization at the Pentagon. And this is where the American strikes were really a gamble: They were undertaken by a White House national security team staffed by unqualified appointees, some of whom—including the Director of National Intelligence and the Secretary of Defense himself—Trump has reportedly frozen out of his inner circle. (Given that those agencies are run by Tulsi Gabbard and Pete Hegseth, it is both terrifying and a relief to know that they have no real influence.) The American defense and intelligence communities are excellent, but they can only function for so long without competent leadership. Trump has had preternatural luck as a president: He has survived scandals, major policy failures, and even impeachment, events that would have ended other American planes dropped their payloads and returned home safely. So he might skate past this war, even if it will be hard to explain to the MAGA faithful who believed him, as they always do, that he was the peace candidate. But perhaps the biggest and most unpredictable gamble Trump took in bombing Iran was to send American forces into harm's way in the Middle East with a team that was never supposed to be in charge of an actual war.

an hour ago

Trump said he was giving Iran a window to come to the table. He struck 2 days later.

It was just on Thursday that President Donald Trump said he would decide "within the next two weeks" on whether to order a U.S. military strike on Iran's nuclear facilities -- ostensibly to give diplomacy a chance, at least temporarily. 'Based on the fact that there's a substantial chance of negotiations that may or may not take place with Iran in the near future, I will make my decision whether or not to go within the next two weeks,' Trump said in a statement read to reporters by White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt. On Friday, asked by a reporter to explain his thinking, he responded it was to give time for the Iranians to "come to their senses." The president also dismissed the talks held in Geneva Friday between European diplomats and Iran's foreign minister Abbas Araghchi, playing down the already low expectations for a breakthrough. "They didn't help," Trump said of the discussions. "Iran doesn't want to speak to Europe. They want to speak to us. Europe is not going to be able to help in this one." He added, "we are ready, willing and able and have been speaking to Iran and we'll see what happens." When a reporter asked, "Does Iran have two weeks or could you strike before that? Are you essentially giving them a two-week timeline?" Trump answered, "Well I'm giving them a period of time. We're going to see what that period of time is. But I'm giving them a period of time, and I would say two weeks would be the maximum." In recent days, Iran has rebuffed a standing offer from the U.S to resume nuclear negotiations. The president's announcement Thursday about a possible delay in hitting Iran frustrated Israeli officials, who have been privately pushing their case for U.S. military involvement for months, according to officials familiar with the matter. Meanwhile, as sharp differences between Israeli and American assessments on Iran's nuclear abilities came to the forefront, Trump also showcased distrust for his own intelligence community, including his own director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard. On Friday, Trump was asked about Gabbard's testimony to Congress in March that the U.S. assessed that Iran was not "building" a nuclear weapon and that Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei had not authorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003. "She's wrong," Trump said flatly. Shortly after Trump spoke, Gabbard criticized the news media, posting on X, "America has intelligence that Iran is at the point that it can produce a nuclear weapon within weeks to months, if they decide to finalize the assembly. President Trump has been clear that can't happen, and I agree." Speaking to the nation late Saturday night -- about two hours after he announced the strikes -- Trump said, "Iran, the bully of the Middle East, must now make peace. If they do not, future attacks will be far greater and a lot easier."