Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on Monday dismissed all 17 members of a key scientific committee that advises the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on vaccine use, pledging to replace them with his own selections. The decision, announced without immediate details on who will replace the current panel, triggered strong criticism from the medical and public health communities.
Kennedy, formerly known as one of the country’s most vocal anti-vaccine activists before becoming the top U.S. health official, did not reveal the names of any replacements. However, he stated that the newly formed committee would reconvene in Atlanta within two weeks.
The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), which Kennedy dismantled, had been considered a nonpartisan body. Nevertheless, all its current members had been appointed during President Joe Biden’s administration. Kennedy justified his action by arguing that a complete overhaul was essential to restore public trust in vaccine science.
“Without removing the current members, the current Trump administration would not have been able to appoint a majority of new members until 2028,” Kennedy explained in an opinion column for the Wall Street Journal. “A clean sweep is needed to re-establish public confidence in vaccine science.”
The reaction from experts was swift and condemning. Dr. Helen Keipp Talbot, who chaired the committee and is affiliated with Vanderbilt University, declined to comment when contacted by phone. Another member, Dr. Noel Brewer of the University of North Carolina, said he and other members received an email on Monday afternoon informing them that their roles had been terminated. The email provided no explanation for the dismissal.
“I’d assumed I’d continue serving on the committee for my full term,” said Brewer, who had been appointed just the previous summer.
Brewer, a behavioral scientist, specializes in researching why individuals choose to get vaccinated and how to increase vaccination rates. He emphasized that doctors traditionally rely heavily on ACIP recommendations when advising patients on vaccinations.
“Up until today, ACIP recommendations were the gold standard for what insurers should pay for, what providers should recommend, and what the public should look to,” Brewer stated.
Kennedy had already made headlines earlier for unilaterally altering COVID-19 vaccination guidelines without seeking input from ACIP, an action that had already drawn criticism from health professionals. This prior move raised concerns about Kennedy’s respect for established scientific procedures.
“It’s unclear what the future holds,” Brewer said. “Certainly provider organizations have already started to turn away from ACIP.”
Kennedy defended his decision by claiming the panel was plagued by conflicts of interest. He cited concerns over potential business relationships among committee members and emphasized the need for transparency. Currently, ACIP members are obligated to declare any financial interests or conflicts both during their tenure and at the beginning of every public meeting.
Despite these existing safeguards, Kennedy expressed dissatisfaction and asserted that more stringent reforms were required.
However, Dr. Tom Frieden, former CDC Director and president of Resolve to Save Lives, warned that Kennedy’s justification was rooted in false accusations and posed serious risks to public health.
“This is a dangerous and unprecedented action that makes our families less safe,” Frieden stated. “Make no mistake: Politicizing the ACIP as Secretary Kennedy is doing will undermine public trust under the guise of improving it. We’ll look back at this as a grave mistake that sacrificed decades of scientific rigor, undermined public trust, and opened the door for fringe theories rather than facts.”
Dr. Georges Benjamin, executive director of the American Public Health Association, labeled Kennedy’s action as an alarming power grab.
“It’s not how democracies work. It’s not good for the health of the nation,” Benjamin told The Associated Press. He also questioned whether the new appointees would be perceived as impartial and reliable.
According to Benjamin, Kennedy has reneged on prior commitments made both to lawmakers and the public. The American Public Health Association, he said, would be watching Kennedy’s moves very closely.
“He is breaking a promise,” Benjamin declared. “He said he wasn’t going to do this.”
Dr. Bruce A. Scott, president of the American Medical Association, expressed deep concern over the implications of the shake-up, especially amid already declining vaccination rates across the United States.
“Today’s action to remove the 17 sitting members of ACIP undermines that trust and upends a transparent process that has saved countless lives,” Scott said in a statement. He stressed that the committee had long served as a trusted source of guidance based on scientific evidence and data.
Republican Senator Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, who is also a physician, had initially voiced reservations about Kennedy’s appointment but ultimately supported his confirmation. Following Monday’s announcement, Cassidy spoke directly with Kennedy and later commented on social media.
“Of course, now the fear is that the ACIP will be filled up with people who know nothing about vaccines except suspicion,” Cassidy posted. “I’ve just spoken with Secretary Kennedy, and I’ll continue to talk with him to ensure this is not the case.”
The advisory committee had already been in a state of uncertainty since Kennedy assumed his role. Its first scheduled meeting of the year was abruptly postponed when the Department of Health and Human Services canceled its February gathering without explanation.
During Kennedy’s confirmation process, Cassidy had expressed a desire to ensure that the integrity of ACIP would be preserved and that its vaccine guidelines would remain consistent. This recent action, however, appears to contradict those assurances.
Following the announcement, the webpage listing the committee’s members was taken down on Monday evening, erasing all public record of the current panel. This symbolic erasure further reinforced concerns among critics that Kennedy’s approach is more about control than collaboration.
As of now, there remains uncertainty over who will be appointed to the new version of the committee, what expertise they will bring, and how their decisions will influence national vaccine policy. Health experts are worried that these decisions may now be shaped more by political ideology than by rigorous scientific evaluation.
The removal of the entire ACIP has raised alarms not just about Kennedy’s leadership style but about the broader direction of U.S. public health policy. Many see this as a pivotal moment in the country’s vaccination efforts and a potential turning point that could either rebuild or further fracture public confidence in immunization programs.