How RFK, Jr.’s Dismissal of CDC Immunization Committee Panelists Will Affect America’s Vaccine Access
U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., abruptly removes all 17 sitting members of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). An epidemiologist explains how this will affect people’s health and vaccine access
U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. testifies before the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions on Capitol Hill on May 20, 2025 in Washington, D.C.
Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images
In a striking move on Monday, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., secretary of the U.S. Department Health and Human Services, announced the dismissal of all sitting public health experts of an independent vaccine committee that counsels the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Called the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, or ACIP, the group holds public meetings to review the latest scientific evidence on vaccine safety and effectiveness and to make clinical recommendations for people in the U.S.—guidance that greatly influences access to disease-preventing shots.
In his announcement in a Wall Street Journal op-ed, Kennedy—who has a long history of as an antivaccine activist—framed the firings as taking “a bold step in restoring public trust by totally reconstituting the Advisory Committee for Immunization Practices.” He also alleged there were “persistent conflicts of interest” among committee members.
Public health experts had been bracing for such a move. “This was everybody’s fear about having RFK, Jr., as our HHS secretary,” says Jennifer Nuzzo, an epidemiologist and director of the Pandemic Center at Brown University.
On supporting science journalism
If you’re enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.
ACIP’s decisions shape immunization schedules—affecting which groups will be recommended vaccines, when and how often they should get them and whether health insurance will cover costs. The panelists hold three open meetings each year to assess and vote on the clinical use of various existing and new vaccines, including ones that protect people against pneumonia, chicken pox, shingles, measles, mumps and rubella (MMR), polio, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), influenza and COVID. According to the agenda of ACIP’s next meeting, slated for June 25–27, members are expected to vote on highly anticipated recommendations that would influence the next winter respiratory illness season—including guidance for COVID, flu and RSV vaccines for adults and children.
In response to various questions about the plans for ACIP, an HHS spokesperson directed Scientific American to the agency’s statement about the announcement and said the committee is still scheduled to meet on June 25–27. According to the statement, new committee members are currently under consideration. The secretary of health and human services gives the final approval of newly appointed ACIP members.
“I cannot imagine that they could compose a new ACIP that has been sufficiently vetted in [less than] three weeks,” Nuzzo says. “One of the reasons why there’s so much concern right now is that changing the composition of ACIP, potentially stacking it with antivaccine members, as many fear could happen, could make it harder for Americans to access vaccines that they want, that their doctors think are beneficial for them.”
Scientific American spoke with Nuzzo about how the ACIP dismissal may affect vaccine policy and access and people’s health.
[An edited transcript of the interview follows.]
What is the primary role of ACIP?
There are a few features of the committee that make it important. One is expertise. The membership of the committee is somewhat diverse to represent a range of expert backgrounds because when you’re talking about vaccines, there are pediatric issues, adult issues—a lot of different types of expertise need to be brought to bear.
It’s also an independent group, meaning that it’s not populated by any particular political party. ACIP’s members are outside experts who are appointed through a very transparent, open process, up to a fixed term. These are independent, nonpolitical actors who also have their conflicts of interests managed. Who they get money from is public knowledge. [Editor’s Note: Members withdraw themselves from deliberations and voting on any product for which they have disclosed a conflict of interest.]
How does ACIP make its decisions?
During the meeting, [the members] have documents, they have people giving presentations. Sometimes those presentations are given by government scientists who have reviewed evidence, or sometimes [the members will look at] evidence from studies on vaccines.
All of the meetings are open: either you could show up in public or, usually, [see a] broadcast on the web. So all of the data that are used in the discussion about vaccines and vaccine policies are made public, and they are reviewed. And not only are they reviewed, but the rationale and the interpretation of those data are public. So the public can see, interrogate, and vet the conclusions and the data that the committees use to base their conclusions.
It’s a very open [process], and that openness adheres to a governance structure has existed throughout multiple presidential administrations, multiple political parties presiding [over] it. It’s also important to note that the CDC director does not have to accept ACIP’s recommendations—the CDC director usually does, but the CDC director does not have to. My worry is not just that politics enters into ACIP; it’s also just that “Will the will of ACIP be adhered to?”
How do ACIP’s recommendations affect people?
ACIP is one of two key advisory committees that serve the U.S. government related to vaccines [the other is the Food and Drug Administration’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC)]. ACIP makes recommendations regarding vaccine policies and utilization—and those recommendations are important, not just because they represent the scientific consensus that exists at the time but also because they usually influence people’s access to vaccines. One real concern is: if ACIP doesn’t recommend a vaccine, insurers may decide not to cover the cost , and some of these vaccines have important out-of-pocket costs. Some of us can afford that, but a lot of us can’t. And so there are real issues about who is going to be able to benefit from vaccines, and it creates a real inequity.
It may also have an effect on the market and companies’ willingness to incur the risks of making vaccines. Vaccines are not like making a car. There are a discovery process and research-and-development process that have to occur. If vaccine manufacturers fear that they’re not going to be able to sell vaccines, that people aren’t going to be able to access them, then they may simply decide not to make them. They might decide that the U.S. market is not where they want to invest their resources and may decide to instead serve other countries.
So it’s not just that ACIP provides advice that the American public can use to make their own vaccine decisions but also [that it] is often the basis by which [vaccine] providers and insurers make vaccines available. So it’s not just about information; it’s also about access.
What does this action potentially mean for future vaccine policies?
I’m worried about all vaccines at this point. I can’t rule out that that isn’t just the first warning shot. Some of the rationale around who should or should not get COVID boosters, in my view, feels like an opening to removing the availability of flu vaccines. We’ve seen the secretary of HHS wrongly malign MMR vaccines amid one of the worst measles outbreaks the U.S. has seen in decades. So I fear that everything’s fair game.
