1. Proposed CDC office could limit publication of scientific information on vaccination and other topics
According to press reports, the Trump administration is considering adding a new office–the Executive Advisory, Science and Operations Unit–within the CDC. The unit, which would report to political leaders within the CDC, would review scientific publications by agency scientists, including in the agency’s flagship publication, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report–a function which is currently done by an existing office of science. This would allow political appointees to shape the scientific information on vaccines and other public health topics put out by the agency.
Editors' note: This action would institutionalize unacceptable interference with the scientific processes at CDC, which already has been a concern under the current administration.
2. CDC proposes new charter for vaccine committee
After initial attempts to change the composition of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices were struck down by the courts, the Administration put forward a new charter. The new document calls for a special focus on vaccine safety (though not efficacy) and drops the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists as a liaison. It also adds as liaisons organizations that focus on autism as opposed to disease prevention and that promoted false information about vaccines, and broadens criteria for membership to permit more members without significant experience related to immunization to be included.
Editors' note: Nobody should be fooled. This is the same attempt to meddle with vaccine policy in a different wrapper.
3. Military issues new flu vaccine policy
In April, Secretary Pete Hegseth removed the requirement for active service members to be vaccinated against flu, saying, "We will not force you." Soon after, the leaders of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines Corps asked for such an exception for new military recruits, who live in close quarters and are at high risk for an outbreak. The exception was not approved until June 16, after an outbreak was already spreading in an Air Force base in Texas. More than 250 people fell ill, at least four were hospitalized, and one recruit died.
Editors' note: It may not be possible to definitively link the policy change to the outbreak, but political posturing over vaccines is far from harmless. At a minimum, the growing epidemic has forced military leaders to acknowledge reality and backtrack.
4. Blocked Covid-19 study published
Previously, we noted that the Acting Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Jay Bhattacharya, had blocked the publication in a CDC journal of a study demonstrating the effectiveness of the Covid-19 vaccine.
The study, which showed that the vaccine reduced emergency department visits and hospitalizations, has since been published in a major peer-reviewed journal. According to the Washington Post, one of the study authors “believed the agency's leadership blocked publication because the findings did not support Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s agenda that wants to limit the use of covid vaccine specifically.” The Journal ran a separate commentary piece defending the use of the study methodology which Bhattacharya had criticized but that has long been used in vaccine effectiveness assessment.
Editors' note: The blocking of the publication of this study in the CDC's journal makes a mockery of the Administration's claims to radical transparency.
5. FDA review does not support previous FDA claims about Covid-19 vaccines in children
In November 2025, then-director of FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Vinay Prasad, wrote in a memo that the agency scientists had found that "no fewer" than 10 pediatric deaths were caused by the Covid-19 vaccine. The underlying review, released by Senator Ron Johnson, actually found that zero deaths had been definitively linked to the vaccine, two were probably linked, and five were possibly linked. The review also cited data showing greater risk from Covid-19 related myocarditis compared to vaccine-related myocarditis. In reviewing the report, Dr. Jake Scott, a clinical professor of infectious disease at Stanford University, wrote, "What the report does not show is that the FDA had been concealing pediatric vaccine deaths, that 10 US children died because of vaccination, or that the risk-benefit balance of pediatric COVID-19 vaccination has changed. The career scientists who wrote the report made none of those claims. The official who commissioned it made all of them."
Editors' note: These events indicate the potential for political appointees to distort the findings of career FDA staff.
6. The Religious Liberty Commission delivers its report to the President
The 224-page report, presented to the President by the Religious Liberty Commission established last year, outlined numerous potential policies related to religion’s role in government and public spaces. The report includes proposals for the Federal government to expand the role of non-medical exemptions to vaccine requirements, including by using the Office of Civil Rights in the Department of Justice to investigate various entities that restrict non-medical exemptions. The report supports using litigation and legislation to support religious objections to vaccines. The report also recommends that FDA prioritize approval of “ethically acceptable alternative vaccines," referring to vaccines that are not derived from human fetal cells.
Editors' note: Major religions all support vaccination. Creating room for anyone to declare a religious objection with limited justification will decrease coverage and put entire communities at risk.
7. Secretary Kennedy asks a journal to explain why a study was retracted–but the editors had apparently already explained why
On June 11, Secretary Kennedy wrote to the editor of a journal, Toxicology Reports, demanding information on why the journal had retracted a 2010 study, “Hepatitis B Vaccination of Male Neonates and Autism Diagnosis, NHIS 1997-2002.” The study, which had been retracted in May, had found a threefold elevation in the diagnosis of autism among boys vaccinated in the first three months of life.
On grounds of transparency, Kennedy objected to the "two sentence" explanation for the retraction. But according to the Journal's website, the editors had published a detailed statement regarding their decision on May 21, explaining that "following publication, concerns were raised regarding the methodology of the study and the reported conclusions. In accordance with our policies, we contacted the authors for an explanation and engaged an independent reviewer for a post-publication statistical review."
The editors then explain that the reviewer "concluded that due to fundamental methodological flaws the study’s conclusions are unsound." The editors specified these concerns:
- "Insufficient study design (cross-sectional) for the causal inferences suggested
- Critically small number of autism cases (n=31) within a highly selective sample
- Inadequate statistical analysis
- Incomplete confounder adjustment resulting in likely biased effect size
- The confounded association is not statistically significant
- Overstated conclusion that inappropriately suggests causality."
The editors concluded, "Therefore, we no longer have confidence in the reported conclusions and have decided to retract the article," while noting "The retracted article will remain online to maintain the scholarly record, but it will be digitally watermarked on each page as 'Retracted.'"
Editors' note: Question asked – and answered.
