In a move that has sent shockwaves through the scientific and public health communities, United States Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced on August 5, 2025, the cancellation of 22 federally funded projects focused on messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccine development. The decision, totaling nearly $500 million in withdrawn support, marks a dramatic shift in the nation’s vaccine research priorities and has reignited fierce debate over the future of pandemic preparedness in the U.S.
According to a statement released on X (formerly Twitter), Kennedy explained that the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), which operates under his department, reviewed the available science and concluded that mRNA vaccines are “ineffective” against mutating respiratory viruses. “A single mutation can make mRNA vaccines ineffective,” Kennedy said in a video address. “After reviewing the science and consulting top experts, … HHS has determined that mRNA technology poses more risk than benefits for these respiratory viruses.”
Instead, Kennedy announced that federal funding would be redirected toward alternative vaccine technologies deemed “safer” and “more effective” for the long term. The impact is far-reaching, affecting major research institutions and pharmaceutical companies. Emory University and Tiba Biotech saw their contracts terminated, while Pfizer, Sanofi Pasteur, and CSL Seqirus had their proposals rejected or canceled. Contracts with Luminary Labs and ModeX were weakened, and those with AstraZeneca and Moderna were restructured, according to the HHS website.
The justification for the sweeping move, however, has come under intense scrutiny. When pressed for scientific evidence behind the decision, the Department of Health and Human Services provided a 181-page list of studies, many of which were compiled by individuals with a history of criticizing COVID-19 public health interventions. The list, last updated on July 1, 2025, was originally assembled as research for the 2024 book Toxic Shot: Facing the Dangers of the COVID ‘Vaccines’. Contributors include Byram Bridle, a viral immunologist, and Steven Hatfill, a virologist and current HHS adviser who previously recommended unproven COVID-19 treatments like hydroxychloroquine, as reported by STAT.
Public health experts were quick to sound the alarm. Many studies cited in the document have been disputed by mainstream scientists, who maintain that mRNA vaccines are overwhelmingly safe and were instrumental in saving lives during the COVID-19 pandemic. “My main concern is that this is part of an increasingly ideological rather than evidence-based approach to healthcare and vaccination in particular that is being adopted in the US,” said David Elliman, associate professor at University College London, in an interview with Al Jazeera. “This is likely to increase vaccine hesitancy … [and] will result in more suffering and death, particularly for children. This would be a tragedy, even more so because it is avoidable.”
Procedural concerns have also been raised. Dorit R. Reiss, a law professor at the University of California, San Francisco, specializing in vaccine law, told Al Jazeera the decision was “troubling and shortsighted.” She criticized the lack of transparency, noting, “At the least, there should be notice and an opportunity for hearing and explanation under our administrative law, and there was instead a short and cursory X video with no references, no real data.”
The list of studies provided by HHS includes references that claim the spike protein produced by mRNA vaccines is “harmful by itself, independent of the rest of the virus.” However, experts point out that other vaccines—and COVID-19 infection itself—also expose the body to the spike protein. The contributors to the list have previously advanced controversial views, with some, like Erik Sass, stating the compilation was “general reference for interested researchers.” The book Toxic Shot itself features a foreword by Senator Ron Johnson, a known critic of COVID-19 vaccine mandates who has previously invited vaccine skeptics to testify before Congress.
This is not the first time Kennedy has made headlines for his stance on vaccines. He is a well-known vaccine skeptic, having chaired the anti-vaccine advocacy group Children’s Health Defense until 2023. Kennedy has a history of controversial statements, including comparing childhood vaccine programs to Nazi-era atrocities and repeatedly promoting the debunked theory that vaccines cause autism, as Al Jazeera reported. In 2023, he told Fox News, “No vaccine is safe or effective.”
The current administration’s actions extend beyond mRNA research. In June 2025, Kennedy ousted all 17 members of a CDC vaccine advisory panel, replacing them with his own appointees. In May, he announced that the federal government would no longer recommend COVID-19 vaccines for healthy children and pregnant women, a move that contradicted the advice of many health officials. The 2026 budget proposal submitted to Congress notably excludes funding for the Global Vaccine Alliance (GAVI), a public-private partnership responsible for distributing vaccines to low- and middle-income countries. The U.S. contributed $300 million to GAVI in 2024 alone.
President Donald Trump, under whom Kennedy serves, has a complex and often contradictory history on vaccines. Trump has repeatedly expressed skepticism about vaccine safety and efficacy, at times linking childhood vaccines to autism—a theory thoroughly debunked by the scientific community. “My theory – and I study it because I have young children – my theory is the shots [vaccines]. We’re giving these massive injections at one time, and I really think it does something to the children,” Trump said in a 2007 interview with the South Florida Sun-Sentinel. Yet, during his first term, Trump also acknowledged the importance of vaccines, especially during a 2019 measles outbreak, stating, “The vaccinations are so important. This is really going around now.”
Trump’s administration has taken a number of steps that critics say undermine the U.S. vaccine system. In February 2025, the administration halted federal funding for schools requiring COVID-19 vaccines, labeling such requirements “coercive.” The Food and Drug Administration, meanwhile, has approved only one non-mRNA, protein-based COVID-19 vaccine, and only for older adults or those at higher risk. The administration’s 2018 budget proposals sought deep cuts to the National Institutes of Health and the CDC, potentially impacting immunization programs, though Congress ultimately rejected those cuts. In May 2018, the Trump administration disbanded the Global Health and Biodefense Unit of the National Security Council, a team established under President Obama to help prepare for pandemics—an action many scientists later blamed for the U.S.’s vulnerability during the COVID-19 crisis.
With Kennedy’s latest directive, the U.S. is shifting support to vaccines based on a whole killed virus approach, aligning with views held by NIH deputy director Matthew Memoli and acting director of the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases Jeffery Taubenberger. But for many in the scientific community, the abrupt pivot away from mRNA technology—which enabled the fastest vaccine rollout in history during the pandemic—raises urgent questions about the nation’s readiness for future outbreaks and the politicization of public health policy.
As the dust settles, the U.S. finds itself at a crossroads, with its approach to vaccine research and pandemic preparedness under unprecedented scrutiny from both domestic and international observers.
