Over the past 150 years, the ascension of the debate on the role of America’s federal government in vaccine recommendations has become unavoidable. Should the federal government have a voice in the advertisement of the safety and effectiveness of vaccines? Should significant steps be taken by the government to instill immunization policies? Who can the public place their trust in? With such an overwhelming multitude of voices on the decisions of and new hirings in Health and Human Services (HHS), Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the most dependable answers are the claims made by those with the most medical experience. Federal input on immunization policy is essential to avoid public confusion, however, this consultancy should source from physicians and medical professionals rather than politicians.
The involvement of the federal legislature in vaccine recommendations can be traced all the way back to 1813, the year in which President James Madison passed the Vaccination Act to encourage the public to receive a vaccination against smallpox. Additional government intervention on vaccine recommendations occurred in the 1905 Supreme Court Ruling of Jacobson v. Massachusetts, in which states were granted the right to enforce individual vaccination laws. Currently, many American citizens are protesting against the injustices of mandatory vaccines, declaring that doctors force their patients to vaccinate without regard to possible risks. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Secretary of the HHS claimed, “Doctors are being paid to vaccinate, not to evaluate.” Is there validity in this statement? Under the Fourteenth Amendment, citizens have a right to refuse unwanted medical treatment; doctors are unable to force their patients to vaccinate. However, physicians do have the ability to make recommendations to their patients based on scientific evidence of vaccine effectiveness. Furthermore, physicians do not acquire an additional profit from vaccinating their patients, and many doctors have even reported that the administration of vaccines leads to increased financial strain in their clinics. If providing vaccines to the public results in a potential profit risk for physicians, why do doctors continue to recommend vaccinations? The National Library of Medicine provides a requisite answer: “safe and effective vaccines save lives.”
Numerous current federal officials, most notably Robert F. Kennedy Jr., are exceedingly in opposition to the implementation of vaccines. Kennedy has taken various methods of action which demonstrate his anti-vaccine position. In June of 2025, Kennedy fired all seventeen members of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), an organization that works to develop evidence-based recommendations to the public on vaccines. Additionally, the CDC, under Kennedy’s consultancy through the HHS, has greatly reduced recommendations on vaccinations for influenza, COVID-19, hepatitis A, hepatitis B, RSV, measles, and additional diseases. Many citizens, especially medical professionals, question the justification of these acts. The consequences of the recent changes made in these major federal health departments can be explicitly shown through recent data. A great example can be seen in the connection between the decrease in measles vaccination rates and increase in measles outbreaks in the U.S. over the past quarter of a century. The CDC declared measles to be eliminated in the U.S. in 2000. Vaccination rates for measles then remained high throughout the following twenty years, as over 95% of young children were fully vaccinated for measles in 2020. Over the past five years, this rate has dropped to 92.5% with a consequence of increasing measles outbreaks in the U.S. In 2021, a total of 49 measles cases were reported. In 2025, this number increased to 2,206 cases. In just the first two months of 2026, over 1,200 cases have already been reported. The correlation between a decrease in vaccinations and an increase in disease outbreaks is indisputable. Consultation from untrained government officials on immunization policies poses a prodigious threat to the health and safety of the public.
So, what is the solution to the debate over vaccination policies? How can public health be preserved while still maintaining the rights of the people? With the abundance of conflicting opinions and controversies that are present in the U.S., it is clear that federal counsel is needed. However, this guidance should come from a sound medical source. Physicians with proficient medical training, not political campaigners, should be appointed to lead federal departments of health. American citizens should be able to confidently place their trust in the heads of the U.S. health departments, as the well-being of the nation is dependent on these individuals.
References:
- https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12174787/
- https://www.kff.org/covid-19/how-hhs-fda-and-cdc-can-influence-u-s-vaccine-policy/
- https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/what-the-overhaul-of-u-s-vaccine-guidance-means-for-public-health
- https://yourlocalepidemiologist.substack.com/p/do-clinicians-make-money-off-of-vaccines
- https://med.stanford.edu/news/insights/2025/05/measles-risk-vaccination-young-old.html
- https://publichealth.jhu.edu/ivac/2025/us-measles-cases-hit-highest-level-since-declared-eliminated-in-2000