Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s Mission for American Health Misses the Mark

Major Changes in US Vaccine Advisory Group

June was a consequential month for vaccine researchers and advocates. Most notably, on June 9, 2025, U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (RFK Jr.) dismissed all 17 members of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). He claimed they all had conflicts of interest, despite evidence that challenges this view. Two days later, he appointed eight new members without a background review, several of whom are known to be critical of vaccines and have spread misinformation.

These efforts suggest that RFK Jr. is more driven by political motivations rather than trying to “Make America Healthy Again,” with established scientific evidence. 

ACIP’s Key Responsibilities 

The ACIP is an important committee for vaccine policy. While the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reviews vaccine safety and efficacy data and approves vaccines for public use, the ACIP provides the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) with recommendations on how approved vaccines should be administered to the general population. Their recommendations primarily center on who should receive specific vaccines and when they should be vaccinated, including what ages should receive them. The group has historically consisted of public health and medical professionals who have extensive knowledge of and expertise in vaccines, immunization, and infectious diseases. 

Prior to making any recommendations, the ACIP reviews the burden of disease in the population, the scientific evidence of a vaccine — especially its efficacy and safety data — and the economic impact of the recommendation. To join the committee in the past, nominees would undergo a long, complicated, and thorough vetting process before they were appointed; this included an extensive orientation process, ethics training, and review of financial and conflicts of interest. 

Yet, this vetting process has not yet been applied to RFK Jr.’s new ACIP appointees, as reports indicate.  

RFK Jr. and Vaccine Skepticism

To assess the efficiency of medical practices, scientists develop a hypothesis, test it, analyze the data to determine what it says, and use this evidence as a basis for policy. However, since being confirmed, RFK Jr. tends to approach vaccination as a lawyer, his original profession, rather than as a scientist. As such, his work in vaccine policy frequently starts with a predetermined conclusion related to vaccine skepticism instead of beginning with the established scientific consensus and data at hand.

For example, RFK Jr. has long espoused the widely discredited view of vaccines being a possible cause of autism. He also has an extensively reported history of spreading medical misinformation, especially related to vaccine skepticism. 

Most recently, RFK Jr. led the authorship of “The MAHA Report: Make Our Children Healthy Again,” which largely aligned with his support of vaccine hesitancy. Several analyses demonstrate that “The MAHA Report” not only misinterprets research but also includes data from and references to nonexistent studies, some deemed to be AI-generated. 

Now, with his disbandment of the ACIP, RFK Jr. appears to be building a jury of people expected to provide the verdict that follows his predetermined conclusions regarding vaccine skepticism.

Supporting a conclusion without sufficient evidence is not how science works, nor how the U.S. public should expect it to function. 

RFK Jr.’s Confirmation Statements and Policy Actions

Inquiries Into RFK Jr.’s Vaccine Views and Conflicts of Interest

In his Senate confirmation hearing’s opening statement, RFK Jr. claimed, “I believe vaccines have a critical role in healthcare.” Throughout the proceedings, he repeatedly stated, “I am not anti-vaccination. I am pro-safety.” However, his recent and past actions put these statements into question. 

Many of RKF Jr.’s past efforts related to vaccine skepticism were aired during his confirmation hearing, such as his role in actively promoting vaccine hesitancy during the 2019 Samoa measles outbreak that led to 83 deaths, many of whom were small children. 

Sen. Bernie Sanders specifically questioned how the Children's Health Defense — a nonprofit that RKF Jr. cofounded in 2016 — monetizes anti-vaccine theories by selling infant merchandise that bears slogans, such as “Unvaxxed, Unafraid” and “No Vax, No Problem.” Sen. Sanders noted how this child’s product “casts fundamental doubt on the usefulness of vaccines” among parents, while also operating as cash inflow for the organization. 

Additionally, despite RKF Jr. voicing his goal to address conflicts of interest, senators also noted his own conflicts of interest related to receiving millions of dollars from lawsuits against a vaccine manufacturer. 

RFK Jr.’s Reported Commitments to Vaccine Policy

More importantly, through the hours and days of RFK Jr.’s confirmation hearing, Sen. Bill Cassidy, the chair of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee, repeatedly asked RFK Jr. that he pledge not to “reduce any funding appropriated by Congress for the purpose of vaccinations”. In a speech on the Senate floor supporting RFK Jr.’s nomination, Sen. Cassidy claimed that RKF Jr. had assured: “If confirmed, he will maintain the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommendations without changes.”

Recently, on June 23, Sen. Cassidy called for the upcoming ACIP meeting with newly appointed members to be delayed, as “some lack experience.” He also noted that the meeting should be postponed until the group is “fully staffed with more robust and balanced representation — as required by law — including those with more direct relevant expertise.” 

While RFK Jr. may maintain that he did not disrupt ACIP’s established process, many have argued that removing all ACIP members along with their collective experiences and institutional memory could be disruptive. Recently dismissed ACIP members expressed these very concerns in a piece for the Journal of the American Medical Association.

Furthermore, reports note that many of the new ACIP committee members have significant conflicts of interest, including providing testimony or serving as paid expert witnesses against vaccine cases in court. As previously noted, none of the new appointees have currently gone through the rigorous vetting process that previous ACIP members underwent. 

Current US Measles Outbreak

The implications of efforts that promote vaccine hesitancy are already unfolding, as measles — a vaccine-preventable disease believed to be eliminated in the United States — spreads across the country. As of June 2025, more than 1,200 measles cases have been confirmed this year to date, with a large outbreak extending from Texas (750), New Mexico (81), Oklahoma (20), Kansas (80), to 32 other states, including the District of Columbia. In 2025, three people died — two Texas school-age children and an adult in New Mexico — all of whom were unvaccinated. 

What the US Public Deserves

As many reports have noted, RFK Jr.’s current vaccine policy actions, including his newly appointed ACIP members, do not align with the best practices of science nor U.S. public health. RFK Jr.’s position as secretary of health and human services calls for him to advocate for the U.S. public rather than primarily for supporters of vaccine hesitancy. 

The U.S. public deserves ACIP members who follow established science, sound evidence, and hypothesis-driven research without financial or other conflicts of interest. The public deserves vaccine policies that are rooted in evidence-based science and not determined by political ideologies or personal opinions. The public deserves a secretary of health and human services who promotes the nation’s public and future health and who follows scientific standards for the best medical interest of all.

This publication was produced on behalf of Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy. Wherever feasible, the material was reviewed by external experts prior to its release. Any errors are the responsibility of the author(s) alone.

This material may be quoted or reproduced without prior permission, provided appropriate credit is given to the author(s) and Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy. The views expressed herein are those of the individual author(s) and do not necessarily represent the views of Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy.