In a move that has sent shockwaves through the medical and political communities, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), under the leadership of Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., has ended its 34-year-old recommendation that newborns receive the hepatitis B vaccine. The decision, made by an 8-to-3 vote of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) on December 5, 2025, has ignited fierce debate among health experts, politicians, and the public, with Massachusetts emerging as a key battleground in the dispute.
For decades, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has recommended the hepatitis B vaccine at birth, a policy credited with reducing childhood infections from an estimated 16,000 cases in 1991 to just seven in 2023, according to KFF Health News. The vaccine, which is administered to newborns in 115 countries and recommended by the World Health Organization, has been hailed as a crucial safety net, especially for babies born to mothers with undiagnosed hepatitis B infections. As infectious disease specialist Cody Meissner put it, “It’s really for chronically infected mothers who for one reason or another do not get tested.”
Despite these successes, the ACIP meeting that led to the reversal was anything but typical. The panel, now dominated by vaccine skeptics handpicked by Kennedy after he dismissed all 17 incumbent experts earlier this year, focused on responding to doubts from vaccine skeptics and opponents. The session, which began December 4, was marked by unorthodox presentations from individuals without recognized expertise in hepatitis or vaccines. Instead of CDC and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) experts, the floor was given to Aaron Siri, a trial attorney known for suing vaccine manufacturers, and others like Vicky Pebsworth, a senior officer at the National Vaccine Information Center, who is now chairing a committee reviewing the entire childhood vaccine schedule.
The panel’s new chair, Kirk Milhoan, a pediatric cardiologist who has called mRNA vaccine technology “the biggest threat to humanity,” was absent for much of the meeting, leaving Vice Chair Robert Malone, a vocal opponent of vaccine mandates, to preside. The CDC did not post slides or data for the meeting in advance, breaking from established practice and further raising eyebrows among public health professionals.
Many experts and former panel members were appalled by the proceedings. Yvonne Maldonado, a Stanford University infectious disease specialist who was removed from the ACIP in June, said, “Almost every statement made by this committee was misinformation, disinformation, or outright lies. They are cherry-picking data, pulling up fringe papers, misunderstanding good papers. They are not the right people to be making decisions.”
Arguments from the committee’s new majority focused on claims that the hepatitis B birth dose was unnecessary or potentially harmful, despite overwhelming scientific consensus to the contrary. Mark Blaxill, an anti-vaccine activist, cited a study showing high fevers in some children after the shot, suggesting brain inflammation—a claim Maldonado refuted, saying, “I’ve seen thousands of children with fevers. It’s not the same as encephalitis.” The committee also heard speculative claims, such as one linking rising cases of inflammatory bowel disease to brewer’s yeast used in vaccine production, without any cited evidence.
Panelists pushing to end the universal birth dose argued that blood tests of pregnant women should suffice to determine which babies need the vaccine. However, only 35% of women who test positive receive all recommended follow-up care, and hepatitis B can spread through everyday contact, such as sharing a toothbrush or towel. Babies infected at birth face a 90% chance of developing chronic liver infection, and 25% of those will die prematurely from chronic liver disease. A recent study cited during the meeting warned that ending the birth dose could result in nearly 500 deaths a year.
Public health experts have also noted that the hepatitis B birth dose has caused very few confirmed major side effects since its introduction. Reed Grimes, director of the Division of Injury Compensation Programs at the Health Resources and Services Administration, clarified that government compensation for vaccine injuries does not necessarily indicate proof of harm, but rather a decision not to contest a claim.
The ACIP’s new recommendation makes the hepatitis B birth dose a shared decision based on individual choice. While federal agencies and private insurers will likely continue to pay for the vaccine if parents request it, studies show that ambiguous advice leads to lower vaccination rates, a concern echoed by Vanderbilt University vaccinologist Kathryn Edwards.
The political fallout has been swift and intense, particularly in Massachusetts. On December 6, Steve Kerrigan, chair of the Massachusetts Democratic Party, called on the state’s three Republican gubernatorial candidates to denounce the federal decision. “This is the latest move by a health department that is being run by a very dangerous and deeply unqualified man in RFK Jr.,” Kerrigan said, accusing the candidates of silence and suggesting that GOP megadonor Mike Minogue’s donations enabled the decision.
The Republican hopefuls were quick to respond. Minogue dismissed the controversy as “party politics,” emphasizing his trust in parent-physician relationships over what he called interference from the political establishment. “I trust my pediatrician to recommend what is best for my family, not someone from the political establishment that has no expertise,” Minogue told the Boston Herald. Brian Shortsleeve’s campaign stated that he supports the standard childhood vaccine schedule, while Mike Kennealy voiced support for “safe, effective, and scientifically proven childhood vaccinations,” but opposed mandates for new, experimental vaccines as seen during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Massachusetts Governor Maura Healey, a Democrat, has made it clear that the state will not comply with the new federal policy. “Your state Department of Public Health — led by an actual doctor and guided by science and data — continues to recommend that newborns receive the hepatitis B vaccine,” Healey said, adding that Massachusetts would work with other states to ensure continued access to vaccines.
The ACIP vote has also received support from former President Donald Trump, who announced a review of all U.S. childhood vaccinations to align them more closely with those of other developed countries. In a post on Truth Social, Trump wrote, “Today, the CDC Vaccine Committee made a very good decision to END their Hepatitis B Vaccine Recommendation for babies, the vast majority of whom are at NO RISK of Hepatitis B, a disease that is mostly transmitted sexually, or through dirty needles.” He added that he had signed a memorandum directing HHS to “FAST TRACK” a comprehensive evaluation of vaccine schedules worldwide.
As the debate rages, the fate of the hepatitis B birth dose—and the broader U.S. vaccine schedule—hangs in the balance. The controversy has highlighted deep divisions over science, public health, and the role of government, with experts warning that ambiguous policies could undermine decades of progress against preventable diseases.
For now, Massachusetts and several other states remain committed to the original vaccine recommendations, underscoring the patchwork nature of public health policy in the United States and the ongoing struggle to balance scientific evidence with political and personal beliefs.
