1 of 9 | Demonstrators are shown at a “Fund Don’t Freeze” rally in front of the Department of Health and Human Services headquarters in Washington on Feb. 19. Federal workers and others protested against the Trump administration’s massive funding cuts to HHS and other agencies. File Photo by Annabelle Gordon/UPI | License Photo
2025 will go down as among the most tumultuous years ever at U.S. health agencies, as President Donald Trump and his controversial Health and Human Services secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., sought to reshape the government’s healthcare establishment to reflect conservative values.
In instituting their “Make America Healthy Again” agenda, they carried out mass layoffs at key agencies such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration, challenged long-established science by promoting beliefs many experts consider fringe or conspiratorial, placed new emphasis on “parental rights” in vaccine policy and sought to save billions of dollars in taxpayers’ funds.
“We must remake the government to maximize efficiency and productivity in order to fulfill the president’s promise to Make America Healthy Again,” Kennedy said in his May budget statement to Congress.
“[The Department of Health and Human Services] has made progress towards these goals, promoting the health of Americans while instituting significant workforce reductions and identifying over $13 billion anticipated in contract savings — and there is more to come.”
Under the so-called MAHA agenda, the agencies would be overhauled to better implement “the new HHS priority of ending America’s epidemic of chronic illness by focusing on safe, wholesome food, clean water and the elimination of environmental toxins,” Kennedy wrote.
But, according to critics, including major medical groups and former agency employees, the result of the actions was “chaos” that “decimated” the morale and effectiveness of the agencies due to layoffs, firings, the introduction of “inaccuracies, misinformation and unsupported claims” in regulatory decisions, and many other factors.
In a year filled with controversies, summarized below are five topics that each generated a significant amounts of attention.
Firing of vaccine advisory panel members
Perhaps the most controversial move of Kennedy’s first year as head of HHS came June 10 with the mass removal all 17 members of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices and their replacement with new appointees, including several who share his vaccine skepticism.
The panel makes recommendations on use of vaccines in the United States.
Kennedy said in a post on X that his new appointments were “designed to restore public trust in vaccines.”
“All of these individuals are committed to evidence-based medicine, gold-standard science and common sense,” he wrote. “They have each committed to demanding definitive safety and efficacy data before making any new vaccine recommendations.”
He also assured that “none of these individuals will be ideological anti-vaxxers.”
However, at least three of the new members had spoken out against mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, while two others served as witnesses in lawsuits against vaccine makers, including one who served on the board of the nation’s oldest anti-vaccine group, according to the Washington Post.
For instance, Martin Kulldorff, a biostatistician and former professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School who was fired in his post in 2024 for what he says was his refusal to take the COVID-19 vaccine, is recognized as an outspoken vaccine skeptic.
He was a co-author of the “Great Barrington Declaration” in 2020, which urged an end to COVID-19 lockdowns and called for relaxing restrictions for low-risk groups while promoting “herd immunity” — ideas that former director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Dr. Anthony Fauci called “ridiculous” and “total nonsense.”
Kulldorff and another new advisory committee member, Robert Malone, have served as paid expert witnesses for plaintiffs suing the pharma company Merck over some of its vaccines targeting measles, mumps and cancer, Bloomberg reported in June.
Kulldorff chaired committee meetings in June and September, each of which saw through changes to vaccine policy that were hotly opposed by doctors’ groups.
In June, the panel voted to recommend that only flu shots not containing the mercury-based preservative thimerosal should be approved after hearing a presentation from Lyn Redwood, the former leader of Children’s Health Defense, an anti-vaccine group founded by Kennedy that dismisses scientific consensus and links the preservative to autism.
The American Academy of Pediatrics, however, insisted that “extensive research proves that thimerosal is a safe ingredient in vaccines, and it does not cause neurological problems or autism. Banning vaccine ingredients without solid scientific reasons sets a dangerous precedent and ultimately makes children less safe.”
Then in September, the committee voted to not recommend COVID-19 shots for those under 65, instead opting to say it should be left up to an individual’s decision-making after consultations with their doctors or healthcare providers.
This vote came after a discussion led by new member Retsef Levi, a professor of operations management at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Sloan School of Management and a known COVID-19 vaccine opponent and skeptic, The Hill reported.
During the same meeting the panel also voted that children under 4 years should receive separate measles/mumps/rubella and varicella vaccines, and not the combined MMRV vaccine, drawing strong opposition from the American Medical Association.
The group said the committee’s move “leaves parents confused about how best to protect their kids and unable to choose the combined MMRV vaccine for children under 4 years old. The AMA is concerned that this change not only reduces parental choice, but also reflects ACIP’s reliance on selective data in forming its guidance.”
This month, Kennedy promoted Kulldorff to chief science officer for the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, or ASPE.
“Martin Kulldorff transformed ACIP from a rubber stamp into a committee that delivers gold-standard science for the American people,” Kennedy said. “I’m glad to welcome him to my team to help develop bold, evidence-based policies to Make America Healthy Again.”
More controversial changes to vaccine policy
Kennedy’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices ignited yet another firestorm among public health advocates this month when the panel voted 8-to-3 to end a decades-old recommendation to automatically vaccinate newborns against hepatitis B, a practice that scientists say have led to a reduction of childhood infections of the virus by 99% since 1991 to only seven cases in 2023.
They opted not only to recommend that babies whose mothers have tested negative for hepatitis B not receive the shot until they are 2 months old, but also suggested “individual decision-making” be the guide as to whether the child would ever start the three-shot vaccine series.
As with its earlier decision regarding COVID-19 shots, the change reflected the administration’s belief that vaccine uptake should be decided at an individual level in which parental rights are paramount.
“The American people have benefited from the committee’s well-informed, rigorous discussion about the appropriateness of a vaccination in the first few hours of life,” Acting CDC Director Jim O’Neill said in a statement, adding that the long-standing U.S. universal birth dose “is an outlier among developed countries with low hepatitis B prevalence.”
Among those making a presentation at the contentious meeting was Cynthia Nevison, a researcher in biochemistry and climate at Colorado University-Boulder’s Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research and a volunteer for the organization SafeMinds, which supports the long-discredited theory that vaccines cause autism.
Her presentation cited studies she claimed demonstrated that hepatitis B birth doses are not especially effective over time and are associated with reduced antibody levels at older ages, especially when vaccination begins in infancy or early childhood.
And in seeking to explain why disease levels had plunged in recent decades, Nevison cited targeted measures aimed at adults, such as safe sex practices and needle exchange programs.
“The universal birth dose contribution to the acute case decline is likely very small,” she added.
These conclusions prompted fiery pushback from others on the committee as the meeting descended into chaos.
Dr. H. Cody Meissner, a professor of pediatrics at the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth and a nationally recognized expert in pediatric infectious diseases, voiced “strong opposition” to Nevison’s presentation, saying she appeared to misunderstand how immunity is measured while pointing out that lower levels of antibodies in adolescents don’t mean they aren’t fully protected from the disease — they indeed remain well-protected by immune memory cells, he said.
“The evidence is very strong that there is lifelong immunity to hepatitis B after completing the series” of vaccinations, Meissner contended.
Meanwhile, Dr. Jason Goldman, president of the American College of Physicians, urged the vaccine skeptics on the panel to “stop cherry-picking the data by individuals who do not have the scientific evidence and data-driven background to make those presentations.”
Afterwards, American Academy of Pediatrics President Dr. Susan Kressly similarly criticized the committee’s conclusions, saying, “This irresponsible and purposely misleading guidance will lead to more hepatitis B infections in infants and children.
“I want to reassure parents and clinicians that there is no new or concerning information about the hepatitis B vaccine that is prompting this change, nor has children’s risk of contracting hepatitis B changed.
“Instead, this is the result of a deliberate strategy to sow fear and distrust among families.”
Medical groups sue RFK Jr. over vaccine decisions
Kressly was among the leaders of six prominent medical groups who in July filed suit against Kennedy for making “unilateral, unscientific changes to federal vaccine policy” which they claim are “assault on science, public health and evidence-based medicine.”
The suit claims that Kennedy “promised multiple times during his Senate confirmation process that: ‘If confirmed, I will do nothing as HHS Secretary that makes it difficult or discourages people from taking vaccines,'” yet broke that promise to the Senate by signing a directive May 27 under which the government will no longer recommend COVID-19 shots for healthy children or pregnant women.
In announcing the policy in a post on X, Kennedy said, “Last year, the Biden administration urged healthy children to get yet another COVID-19 shot despite the lack of any clinical data to support the repeat booster strategy in children. … We’re now one step closer to realizing President Trump’s pledge to Make America Healthy Again.”
That directive, the suit claims, “breaks the promise that the secretary made to the Senate and the American people not to make it difficult to get vaccines or discourage them. The directive, unless vacated, will result in preventable deaths, including the unborn and newborns under six months old.”
In November, the suit was updated by its plaintiffs, which include the American Academy of Pediatrics, American College of Physicians, American Public Health Association, Infectious Disease Society of America, Massachusetts Public Health Alliance and Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, and an unidentified pregnant woman described as “a physician working in a hospital … who was advised to get another dose of the [COVID-19] vaccine later in pregnancy to better protect herself and her baby from contracting this deadly disease.”
Their demands were broadened to include dismissal of the committee members appointed by Kennedy in June. The amended complaint says the appointees “lack the credentials and experience required of their role and that the group’s votes should be declared null and void.”
“The nation’s children are already paying the price in avoidable illnesses and hospitalizations,” Kressly said in statement. “We urge federal leaders to restore the science-based deliberative process that has made the United States a global leader in public health. Urgent action is needed.”
“The secretary stands by his CDC reforms,” an HHS spokesman told ABC News in July.
The department on Nov. 19 sought to have suit dismissed on the grounds that the medical groups lacked standing. The matter remained pending in U.S. District Court in Massachusetts as 2025 came to an end.
RFK Jr. mulls replacing another key panel’s members
Concerns remained high as the year ended that Kennedy was also poised to replace all 16 members of a nominally independent and influential advisory committee that offers guidance about preventive health services.
The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force is a volunteer group of national experts who provide evidence-based recommendations on clinical preventive services. Members are appointed by the health and human services secretary to staggered, four-year terms.
Designed to be nonpartisan and independent, the panel issues recommendations that dictate coverage policy for health insurers nationwide who, under law, must cover task force-recommended services without cost-sharing. This means patients have access to preventative services such as screenings for colon, breast and lung cancer, and many other diseases without having to shoulder any costs.
Alarm bells went off in July when the Wall Street Journal reported Kennedy was considering firing all members of the panel because they were “too woke.” Its July meeting was then abruptly postponed.
The HHS secretary did not deny he was considering making the move, telling reporters in August, “The task force has done very little over the past five years, and we want to make sure it is performing, and it is approving interventions that are actually going to prevent the health decline of the American public. And it hasn’t.
“We’re looking at the personnel and we’re making the decision now, but no decision has been made.”
The November meeting of task force also was postponed by HHS, which cited the then-ongoing government shutdown as the reason.
Concerns over the panel’s future were heightened when the Supreme Court ruled the HHS secretary has the authority to both appoint and its fire members at his discretion.
The AMA was among the prominent medical groups to voice dismay at the report, expressing “deep concern” in a letter to Kennedy.
“USPSTF plays a critical, non-partisan role in guiding physicians’ efforts to prevent disease and improve the health of patients by helping to ensure access to evidence-based clinical preventive services,” the AMA said in its letter.
“As such, we urge you to retain the previously appointed members of the USPSTF and commit to the long-standing process of regular meetings to ensure their important work can continue without interruption.”
On Aug. 11, a group of nearly 200 organizations representing patients, parents, workers, small businesses, health care providers, public health professionals and consumers similarly urged caution.
To replace all of the task force members “would not only undermine decades of bipartisan public health progress, precedent and practice, but would erode trust in the integrity of our public health system and ultimately put lives at risk while increasing costs,” they wrote.
“Any attempt to restructure the task force, remove its members, withdraw support or undermine its processes would jeopardize access to no-cost, life-saving care for millions of Americans.”
Massive layoffs at HHS agencies ignite calls for resignation
Less than three months into the new year, the HHS under Trump and Kennedy announced a “Transformation to Make America Healthy Again,” to be achieved partly through an agency workforce reduction of about 10,000 full-time employees.
When combined with HHS’ other efforts, including early retirement and cuts instituted by billionaire Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency, “the restructuring results in a total downsizing from 82,000 to 62,000 full-time employees” for a savings of $1.8 billion per year, the agency said.
“Over time, bureaucracies like HHS become wasteful and inefficient even when most of their staff are dedicated and competent civil servants,” Kennedy asserted. “This overhaul will be a win-win for taxpayers and for those that HHS serves. That’s the entire American public, because our goal is to Make America Healthy Again.”
“Over the past four years, during the Biden administration, HHS’ budget increased by 38% and its staffing increased by 17%,” he said.
Kennedy later told reporters that 20% of the HHS job cuts, covering approximately 2,000 workers, were done in error and that they would be reinstated, asserting the restorations were “always part of the plan.”
The American Federation of Government Employees Local 2883, which represents CDC employees, estimated in October that 4,300 agency employees — or roughly 33% of its workforce before January — had either been separated from the agency or were in the process of being removed.
At the CDC, key agency officials at first complained and then resigned over what they called a blatant disregard for science and the health of Americans it was designed to protect.
Since the start of the second Trump administration, “the reductions in staff and programs, abrupt layoffs, drastic funding cuts and a disregard for scientific processes” have compromised the CDC, according to a trio of former top agency officials writing in the British medical journal The Lancet aftertheir resignations in September.
Debra Houry, Daniel Jernigan and Demetre Daskalakisc said the agency has served as the nation’s “immune system” for 80 years, “detecting threats early, coordinating rapid responses and safeguarding population health.”
But all that has been compromised, they wrote, “prompting our resignations, following the firing of the U.S. Senate-confirmed CDC Director Susan Monarez” on Aug 27.
The cuts and “non-scientific directives” from the Trump administration “represent an unprecedented dismantling of scientific leadership and a retreat from objective, evidence-driven policy, endangering the CDC’s capacity to respond credibly to health threats,” they warned in the article.
At the Food and Drug Administration, the workforce was to be slashed by 3,500 full-time employees, the administration announced in April, adding, “This reduction will not affect drug, medical device or food reviewers, nor will it impact inspectors.”
But some scientists at FDA food safety labs were indeed “inadvertently fired” because of “inaccurate job classification codes” and then rehired, an agency spokesperson told The New York Times later that month.
In March, Dr. Peter Marks, the top vaccine regulator at the FDA, was forced to resign, citing what he called “misinformation and lies” around immunization amid an ongoing measles outbreak in Texas, which had grown to at least 400 cases at the time.
The mass layoffs and vaccination policies at HHS triggered widespread calls for Kennedy’s resignation or impeachment, especially in the wake of a fiery Sept. 4 hearing in which he faced tough questioning from both Republican and Democratic senators about his overhaul of the CDC.
One of the resignation calls came from members of his own family. Former Rep. Joe Kennedy III called his uncle “a threat to the health and well-being of every American” and accused him of choosing “to dismiss science” and “sow confusion” during the hearing.
“The challenge before us — from disease outbreaks to mental health crises — demand moral clarity, scientific expertise, and leadership rooted in fact,” he wrote. “Those values are not present in the secretary’s office. He must resign.”
A coalition of national medical, scientific, public health and patient organizations similarly called for Kennedy’s ouster after the Senate hearing “to ensure the health of the American people,” citing the CDC’s alleged “decimated capacity to make evidence-based vaccine recommendations and objectively oversee vaccine safety” among a list of concerns.
“After careful consideration, we insist on Kennedy’s resignation to restore the integrity, credibility and science-driven mission of HHS and all its agencies,” they said in a statement, which was signed by the Academic Pediatric Association, Infectious Diseases Society of America, the Washington State Medical Association and others.
The American College of Physicians, representing 162,000 internal medicine physicians, also called on Trump and Congress to replace Kennedy.
“Secretary Kennedy’s actions have undermined and destabilized our public health infrastructure, shown a blatant disregard for decades of evidence-based, proven science, and have spread dangerous medical misinformation, sowing chaos and confusion and putting lives at risk,” they declared.
Kennedy “was unfit to serve as the secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services before he was on the job, which is why every Democratic member of the Senate Finance Committee opposed his nomination,” those same Democrats said on Sept. 4 in calling for his dismissal. “The actions [he] has taken since he was sworn in reinforce the danger he poses to the health of America.
“By discarding well-established science related to vaccines, elevating conspiracy theorists and self-interested charlatans to positions of public trust, and presiding over the largest cut to American health care in history, Robert Kennedy has reinforced every fear families had about him,” they added.
But while a handful of former and current Republican senators and officials likewise criticized Kennedy, those more closely aligned with Trump defended him after the hearing.
Sen. Roger Marshall, R-Kan., told CBS News Kennedy was chosen by Trump to be a “disruptor to the CDC, and that’s exactly what he’s doing. He’s focused on making the CDC more transparent, to make it more trustworthy right now. Right now, Americans don’t trust the CDC, so he is literally turning that place upside down.
“I respect what my colleagues are saying, but I think that, you know, this whole issue today, or in that meeting, was about vaccines. In my humble opinion, not every person needs every vaccine.”
Marshall added, “Vaccines, overall, have saved hundreds of millions of lives, but not every person needs every vaccine. And we just want to empower parents and the doctors to make great decisions.”
