US Vaccine Panel Retreats from mRNA Covid Review Ahead of Midterms
A major federal panel advising the US government on vaccines has retreated from efforts targeting Covid-19 mRNA vaccines, a shift that comes as Republicans reportedly warn that further changes in vaccine policy could harm the party in the upcoming midterm elections. Several vaccine advisers selected by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. had been exploring the possibility of ending federal recommendations for mRNA Covid shots, but that initiative is no longer moving forward, according to two sources familiar with the discussions who spoke to the Washington Post.
Internal Concerns and Political Dynamics
Members of the health department's vaccine advisory committee, known as ACIP, have openly raised concerns in recent months about the safety and production of the vaccines, despite widespread research supporting their efficacy. Some comments included repeating a debunked claim that DNA contamination in the shots posed a health risk. The US Department of Health and Human Services press secretary, Emily G. Hilliard, stated that the committee has not reconsidered its September 2025 decision to classify Covid vaccines under shared clinical decision-making on the CDC immunization schedules.
She emphasized that the FDA and ACIP have consistently been aligned, with the FDA's approval of Covid vaccines for high-risk groups and ACIP's recommendation to include them on the immunization schedule under shared clinical decision-making, which bases vaccination decisions on individual patient characteristics.
Expert Analysis and Legal Implications
Dorit Reiss, a vaccine law expert and professor at UC Law San Francisco, noted that the situation reflects two key factors. First, the administration aims to avoid creating more controversy around vaccines, recognizing that this could be politically harmful since most voters do not support Kennedy's anti-vaccine agenda. Second, the current ACIP members may not fully understand their role, which does not extend to setting insurance codes. Reiss suggested that these members might be unwilling to grasp the boundaries of their authority or disregard the rule of law, having faced criticism for this in the past.
She highlighted that if ACIP had voted on Covid-19 vaccines without proper notice in the federal register, it would have violated the Federal Advisory Committee Act, making such actions legally vulnerable. Reiss also pointed out that including discussions on Covid-19 vaccine injury and long Covid is unusual, as ACIP's role is to make evidence-based vaccine recommendations, not to treat diseases or propagate anti-vaccine claims.
Broader Context and Recent Developments
The two mRNA vaccines currently used in the US, produced by Moderna and the Pfizer-BioNTech partnership, account for the vast majority of Covid-19 vaccinations administered. This move away from direct criticism of the vaccines occurs as Republicans face declining polling numbers ahead of the November midterm elections, alongside continuous criticism from medical professionals. In an interview last November, Kennedy claimed he directed the CDC to revise its stance that vaccines do not cause autism, but the Trump administration has since taken steps suggesting a quieter retreat from earlier positions that immunizations pose a significant public health threat.
Recently, the top vaccine official at the FDA, Vinay Prasad, departed from the agency again following controversies involving vaccine reviews, marking his second exit in under a year. Additionally, Casey Means, Trump's controversial nominee for US surgeon general, sidestepped direct questions on vaccine guidance during a Senate hearing, acknowledging the overwhelming evidence refuting links between vaccines and autism while emphasizing that science is never settled. The FDA also reversed an earlier decision and agreed to evaluate Moderna's application for an mRNA-based flu vaccine, after previously declining to review it.
