On June 9, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. removed all 17 members of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices — the Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s key vaccine advisory panel — and replaced them with his own appointees. Established in 1964, ACIP develops national vaccine recommendations, including schedules and safety guidelines, which influence coverage under Medicaid, Medicare and private insurance.
According to Kennedy, the move was intended to re-establish public confidence in vaccine science” by reducing conflicts of interest and ensuring that “unbiased science” guides vaccine recommendations. His overhaul of ACIP has sparked widespread concern, particularly among medical organizations such as the American Medical Association and California Medical Association, both of which have condemned the decision as politically motivated and dangerous to public health.
Experts are warning that the dismissal of such seasoned public health professionals undermines confidence in vaccine guidance and risks allowing ideology, rather than scientific evidence, to drive vital immunization decisions, threatening the systems that protect communities from preventable diseases.
The newly formed ACIP includes eight appointees, several of whom hold controversial views on vaccines and have limited expertise in immunology. Dr. Joseph Hibbeln is a psychiatrist and nutritional neuroscientist who serves on the advisory council for the Seafood Nutrition Partnership, a non-profit focused on “building awareness of the health and nutritional benefits of seafood.” Dr. James Pagano is a retired emergency medicine physician and emergency room medical director at Emergent Medical Associates in Santa Monica, Calif. While both have experience in their respective fields, neither has clear credentials in vaccines or immunology.
Dr. Michael A. Ross, a physician and former professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Virginia Commonwealth University, also lacks direct experience in vaccines. He has served on the boards of several companies, including a cancer screening test startup and a contact lens manufacturer.
Retsef Levi, Ph.D., is a professor of operations management at MIT Sloan School of Management who has done research in healthcare management and in supply chain and logistics. Levi is a vocal critic of mRNA vaccines, having expressed in a post on X that “the evidence is mounting and indisputable that MRNA vaccines cause serious harm including death, especially among young people. We have to stop giving them immediately!”
Dr. Robert W. Malone is a physician and researcher who claims to be one of the inventors of the mRNA vaccine, though he has also avidly denounced them, making unsubstantiated claims that the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA COVID-19 vaccines could worsen infections.
Vicky Pebsworth is a registered nurse and a board member of the National Vaccine Information Center, an anti-vaccine group. Pebsworth has publicly blamed vaccines for her son’s autism — a claim that has been thoroughly debunked by several credible research organizations — yet now serves on ACIP.
Martin Kulldorff, Ph.D., a Swedish biostatistician, served as an expert witness against Merck’s Gardasil HPV vaccine, a vaccine considered to be “extremely safe” by the World Health Organization’s Global Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety. Gardasil also has over 15 years of data reaffirming its efficacy and durability of protection. Further, the CDC prohibits members of ACIP from serving as expert witnesses against vaccines.
Dr. H. Cody Meissner, a pediatric infectious disease expert and a previous ACIP member from 2008–12. Meissner has also served on the Food and Drug Administration’s Vaccine and Related Biologic Products Advisory Committee, offering some traditional expertise on vaccines amid the more controversial new ACIP appointments.
At their first meeting in June, the reorganized ACIP recommended against flu vaccines containing thimerosal — a vaccine preservative with decades of safety data — raising concerns among public health experts about legitimizing discredited claims. The shift represents not just a change in personnel but a re-orientation of the panel toward skepticism and ideological influence.
The radical shakeup of ACIP carries profound implications for both the vaccine landscape and the broader U.S. healthcare system. Historically, ACIP recommendations have been the bedrock for vaccine coverage decisions under federal health insurance programs and nearly all private insurers, meaning changes in ACIP guidance directly affect which vaccines Americans can access affordably. If the new ACIP panel adopts recommendations that diverge from long-standing evidence-based standards, patients may find themselves with reduced insurance coverage, higher out-of-pocket costs or barriers to timely immunization. This shift could exacerbate disparities in preventative care, particularly among low-income populations who rely heavily on federally mandated coverage.
Beyond insurance, the committee’s turn toward skepticism contradicts Kennedy’s initially declared goal in the ACIP overhaul by generating a new threat to public confidence in immunization. Trust in vaccines rests on a foundation of scientific neutrality and institutional credibility. Replacing seasoned experts with individuals who have expressed skepticism toward widely accepted technologies injects political and ideological uncertainty into vaccine policy. Jason Privelege, president of the American Academy of Physician Associates, warned that the move was “deeply damaging to confidence in vaccines that have proven to be safe for decades and in the healthcare providers who counsel patients and their families about immunization decisions every day.” Without clear, consistent and expert-backed guidelines, the United States’ previously cohesive immunization strategy risks fragmentation. This could not only hinder uptake of routine vaccines like measles, influenza and HPV but also leave the country more vulnerable in responding to future pandemics.
These changes are part of a broader change within federal health policy under the current administration. Shortly after the ACIP rework, Kennedy announced the cancellation of 22 Center for the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority mRNA vaccine development projects — totaling nearly $500 million in funding — to make way for alternative “safer, broader” vaccine platforms. This dual shift in both advisory structure and research funding signals a departure from long-standing, expert-led vaccine policy toward a more fragmented, politicized paradigm. Safeguarding science-based coverage and access amid institutional uncertainty remains an urgent challenge for public health officials, insurers and patients alike.
