Kate Smith, MD, MPH; Program Manager
I wish I could say I was surprised.
In an unprecedented and deeply alarming move, Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr – a man with an established track record of ignoring scientific consensus – made the unilateral, ideologicial decision to remove every single member of the nation’s vaccine policy committee, and announced plans to handpick their replacements.
The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) is one of the most trusted and effective pillars of the US’s vaccine infrastructure. For the past 64 years, ACIP has been the backbone of vaccine policy in the US, and has been guided by scientific process, transparency, and collaboration. Its members are independent experts in pediatrics, immunology, vaccinology, and epidemiology who review the evidence to recommend who should receive which vaccines and when. The timeline goes like this:
- Clinical trial or realworld data
- VRBPAC (advisory committee of the FDA) determines if the vaccine is safe and effective
- FDA license/approval
- ACIP determines who gets the vaccine and when
- CDC director signs off
- Public has access to a vaccine
ACIP appointments are rigorously vetted for conflicts of interest. Once appointed, members participate in an open process – meetings are live-streamed, presentations and data are posted online, conflicts of interest are disclosed, and public comment is required by law. This process has been grounded in the bipartisan belief that vaccine policy should be shaped by science, experience, and diverse perspectives.
In his talking points yesterday, RFK Jr stated that:
- ACIP has undisclosed conflicts of interest. RFK Jr. reaffirmed this process after he called for a full review of the current committee’s disclosures. Nothing was found.
- ACIP is paid by big pharma. They are not. An investigation in March 2025 found no systemic evidence of undue pharmaceutical company influence on the members.
- ACIP has never voted against a vaccine. Yes they have. ACIP voted against RotaShield (1999), nasal influenza vaccines (2016-2017), and the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine (2021)
This move is the latest in a slew of actions (rolling back COVID-19 vaccine eligibility, bypassing FDA procedures, imposing impossible standards, pushing incomplete AI-generated policy statements) that have prompted the resignations of senior vaccine officials at the CDC and FDA, citing misinformation and the abandonment of science.
So where does this leave us?
There’s no new committee yet, no timeline, and no public process. Just a Wall Street Journal op-ed and a power vacuum. How it will effect us is unclear. Best case scenario, RFK Jr. appoints qualified, independent experts committed to science, the committee returns to its work, and vaccine guidance remains credible and intact. Worst case, he fills ACIP with people who share his ideology, and recommendations and access to vaccines are removed. It’s more likely that whatever happens will fall somewhere in between.
What’s at stake?
If ACIP remains dismantled, loses credibility, or recommendations for vaccines are changed by the new committee, there are consequences we’ll have to deal with:
- Insurance Coverage. ACIP recommendations are the basis for what vaccines insurers must cover. Coverage may be withdrawn. Some insurers may continue to pay out of pragmatism (MMR vaccine is cheaper than measles treatment), but others may not.
- Vaccines for Children (VFC) Program. Nearly half of all US children rely on this program for free vaccines, and ACIP determines what is included. Millions of children may lose access to routine protection.
- State Fragmentation. Most states follow ACIP guidance for children entering public pre-schools and public schools. Without a federal anchor, states could split, creating their own adivsory boards and issuing inconsistent recommendations, which could open the door to outbreaks.
All of this can profoundly impact people’s ability to make evidence-informed decisions.
What can you do?
Contact Representative McBride and Senators Blunt Rochester and Coons . Tell them that this move was not okay.