RFK Jr. guts the U.S. vaccine policy committee
The system is becoming unrecognizable.
Well. He did it.
In an unprecedented and deeply alarming move, Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has removed every single member of the nation’s vaccine policy committee—the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP)—and announced plans to handpick their replacements.
In other words, someone with an established track record of ignoring reality made the unilateral, ideological decision to gut one of the most trusted and effective pillars of America’s vaccine infrastructure. A system that helped eliminate smallpox, drastically reduce childhood diseases, safeguard schools, expand insurance coverage, and save millions of lives. A system that empowered 90% of Americans to protect their children and families confidently.
It’s now becoming unrecognizable.
Unfortunately, I’m not surprised, but I’m deflated and deeply concerned. Not just about what this means for the future, but what it signals right now.
What we know
For 64 years, ACIP has been the backbone of vaccine policy in the U.S., guided by scientific processes, 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. It’s a critical step in ensuring vaccines are safe and effective.
ACIP appointments have always been somewhat opaque, but each member is rigorously vetted for conflicts of interest. Once appointed, members participate in a remarkably open process. Meetings are live-streamed, presentations and data are posted online, conflicts of interest are disclosed, and public comment isn’t just accepted, it’s required by law.
Historically, this process has been grounded in the nonpartisan belief that vaccine policy should be shaped by science, experience, and diverse perspectives—not ideology.
This has changed.
The Secretary of Health (a man named one of the Disinformation Dozen by the Center for Countering Digital Hate) now controls the levers of federal vaccine policy and is pulling them fast based on his decades of false beliefs about vaccines.
It doesn’t take much to counter his talking points yesterday:
No, ACIP doesn’t have undisclosed conflicts of interest. RFK Jr. reaffirmed this process himself after he called for a full review of the current committee’s disclosures. Nothing was found.
No, ACIP isn’t paid by big pharma. An investigation in March 2025 found no systemic evidence of undue pharmaceutical company influence on the members.
Yes, ACIP has voted against a vaccine. Some examples include RotaShield (1999), nasal influenza vaccines (2016-2017), Johnson and Johnson Covid-19 vaccine (2021).
This move is the latest in a broader arc of undermining the long-standing process for assessing and approving vaccines in the United States: rolling back Covid-19 vaccine eligibility, bypassing FDA processes, imposing impossible standards, and pushing cherry-picked, incomplete, AI-generated policy statements. These moves have already prompted the resignations of senior vaccine officials at the CDC and FDA, citing misinformation and the abandonment of science.
What we don’t know
There’s no new committee yet, no timeline, no public process. Just a Wall Street Journal op-ed and a power vacuum.
How this will affect you, your family, or your community isn’t clear yet. We’re at the mercy of what comes next. There is a spectrum of scenarios that could play out:
Best-case: RFK Jr. appoints qualified, independent experts committed to the science. The committee resumes its work. Vaccine guidance remains credible and intact.
Worst-case: He fills ACIP with anti-vaccine ideologues. Recommendations are completely removed, and so is your access to vaccines.
Most likely: Somewhere in between. But given his history, the tilt is obvious.
There’s also a real possibility Kennedy overplayed his hand. Many Americans—across the political spectrum—value vaccines, access, and the ability to protect their children, families, and communities. Senator Bill Cassidy, a Republican physician, cast the deciding vote to confirm Kennedy based on personal assurances that ACIP would remain untouched. That promise is now broken. A lot of this is on him. Will he respond? And if this becomes a political liability for Trump, does it suddenly become not worth the fight?
What’s at stake
If ACIP remains dismantled, loses credibility, or recommendations for vaccinations are changed by the new committee, there’s a cascade of consequences we’ll have to grapple with:
Insurance coverage: ACIP recommendations are the basis for what vaccines insurers must cover. Coverage could be withdrawn without structure, confidence, or if ACIP becomes politicized. Some insurers may continue to pay out of pragmatism (MMR is cheaper than measles treatment), but others may not.
Vaccines for Children (VFC) program: Nearly half of all U.S. children rely on this program for free vaccines. ACIP determines what’s included. Remove the committee or gut its recommendations, and millions of children may lose access to routine protection.
State fragmentation: Most states follow ACIP guidance. Without a federal anchor, states could splinter, creating their own advisory boards, issuing inconsistent recommendations, and fueling a patchwork of policies that open the door to outbreaks.
Above all, the lines between truth and falsehood have never been more blurred for families and clinical care teams. This alone could profoundly impact Americans’ ability to make evidence-informed decisions. Confusion is the point, and it could further sow doubt, reduce vaccine uptake, and put lives at risk.
What to watch
The next few weeks will tell us more:
Who is on the new committee, and how quickly will they appear? The faster it’s announced, the more likely the appointments are ideological.
Will the June 25–27 ACIP meeting move forward, and what happens if it does?
How will Cassidy, the HELP Senate Committee (who oversees RFK Jr.), and Congress respond?
The fall respiratory season is quickly approaching, and it’s critical that we get clear answers soon, so Americans have the information they need, access to options, and the confidence to get vaccinated. Timing is everything. I’ll be watching closely and will keep you updated.
Bottom line
Secretary Kennedy’s decision marks a dangerous turning point: Whether vaccine policy in America is shaped by science or ideology.
The structures that once supported science-informed vaccine decision-making are becoming unrecognizable through calculated dismantling, flooding the zone with confusion, and sowing just enough doubt to paralyze public health decision-making.
We should all be paying attention. Because what happens next will determine whether your child or your community has the choice of life-saving protection.
And whether scientific processes still have a place in shaping our future.
Love,
YLE
P.S. After the news broke yesterday, my friend Dr. Jeremy Faust (at Inside Medicine) asked if we should talk it out live on Substack. It was raw, but we went for it after a deep breath, and 5,000 of you showed up with zero notice (thank you!). Watch the recording here.
Your Local Epidemiologist (YLE) is founded and operated by Dr. Katelyn Jetelina, MPH PhD—an epidemiologist, wife, and mom of two little girls. YLE is a public health newsletter that reaches over 380,000 people in more than 132 countries, with one goal: to translate the ever-evolving public health science so that people are well-equipped to make evidence-based decisions. This newsletter is free to everyone, thanks to the generous support of fellow YLE community members. To support the effort, subscribe or upgrade below:
We’re taking our son in for his annual wellness visit this week … already we have a list of questions for the pediatrician related to how soon we can get certain vaccinations (if he kid is 10). This is so, so scary, sad, and rage-inducing.
this is all part of Kennedy's personal agenda to destroy public health, as it exists at the federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial levels. I have no doubt that Kennedy will try to fill ACIP with "experts" who are not recognized as being an authority in the fields of virology, immunology, pediatrics, infectious disease, etc. None of them will be expert, but they all will be critics, who have nothing more to offer than their subjective opinions.