This was originally published on the Alliance for Citizen Engagement (Center bias). It was written by Juliana Carriero-Oliver, Taylor DeLac, Mahabuba Masud, Hope Minor, Vaidehi More, and Jennifer Riekes. Edited by Katelyn Bremer.
Introduction
As with any health issue in the United States, a level of politicization began to seep into an issue as rudimentary as vaccinations in the late 1990s due to a study published in the British medical journal The Lancet. This study, now completely debunked and retracted by the journal, claimed that there was a connection between the MMR vaccine and autism in children. Once that seed was planted into parents’ minds worldwide, new and old vaccines alike began to face public scrutiny surrounding their efficacy, safety, and distribution. This skepticism has impacted decades of vaccine distribution, such as H1N1, HPV, and COVID-19 vaccines. Fears of false side effects and beliefs of security without vaccination caused widespread distrust of decades-old vaccines, like the MMR vaccine, which had kept the general population safe from deadly outbreaks for decades. Thus, decades-old policies that required vaccination to keep children and adults alike safe and healthy came under public scrutiny, too.
Due to the COVID-19 pandemic and widespread disinformation fueled heavily by President Donald Trump, vaccination quickly became a partisan issue. President Trump’s selection of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. for U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) made it clear that this issue would continue to be politicized due to RFK Jr.’s public opinions regarding vaccines. And it has. At the end of the day, however, vaccination is a health issue, not a political one.
Historical Context: Vaccination in the U.S
Vaccines have been a reliable way to combat certain diseases for over two centuries. Even earlier than that, other types of inoculation, like variolation in Great Britain, helped people prevent disease and preserve health. However, public health campaigns to promote vaccination did not start until much later. The 1960s saw the first widespread vaccination campaigns in the United States for diseases other than polio, like rubella and tetanus. Policies, like the Vaccination Assistance Act, signed into law by President John F. Kennedy, improved access to vaccines for children under five years old and coincided with the creation of wallet vaccine cards to help people keep track of their vaccination status. These vaccination campaigns continued for the next few decades before widespread vaccine hesitancy was spurred on by falsified scientific studies and disinformation campaigns.
Contemporary Vaccine Policies & Political Influence
The new Secretary of Health and Human Services is not the only instance of politics interfering with the health issue of vaccination. Recent bills, like H.R.119, from the House of Representatives penalize non-government entities that receive federal funding by rescinding federal funding if they require their employees to receive COVID-19 vaccines. This bill specifically focuses on businesses that receive federal funds from COVID relief packages, and it was sponsored by Representative Andy Biggs (R-AZ). After Representative Biggs introduced the bill on January 3, 2025, it was referred to a committee and has not been discussed since. Thus, it is unclear whether this bill and others like it will pass. However, the trend toward bills that negatively represent and penalize people who receive the COVID-19 vaccine continues with H.R. 1671, or the Justice for Vaccine Injured Veterans Act of 2025. This bill was introduced on February 27, 2025, by Representative Warren Davidson (D-OH). This legislation focuses on limiting vaccine requirements and addressing reported adverse effects of the vaccine. Though neither of these bills passed their committees yet, the introduction of two bills with similar goals of reducing vaccine protections and promoting negative views of them shows a new trend in the politicization of vaccines in the United States.
Key Figures & Events in the Vaccine Debate
RFK Jr: the 26th United States Secretary of Health and Human Services
Robert Francis Kennedy Jr., also known by his initials RFK Jr., is an American politician and currently serves as the 26th United States Secretary of Health and Human Services. In 2024, he was a nominee for the US presidential election but later stepped down and endorsed Donald Trump for the position. He was a chair for the Children’s Health Defense, an anti-vaccination nonprofit that filed approximately 30 federal and state lawsuits since 2020, challenging vaccines and public health mandates. In a speech at an event for the nonprofit, he discussed his anti-vaccine rhetoric and called for a “break” in infectious disease research.
Secretary Kennedy and COVID-19 Vaccine Skepticism
In June 2024, Dr. Anthony Fauci— chief medical adviser to President Joe Biden— appeared before Congress after leaving government employment in 2022 and defended his stance on the COVID-19 vaccine. As Republican lawmakers asked him questions, he testified that actions taken by the medical professionals and public health workers were essential to saving lives. Nonetheless, Republican-leaning voters were less trusting of public health mandates for vaccines and health agencies including the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). Since Republican-leaning parents are twice as likely as Democratic-leaning parents to say that the vaccines’ risks outweigh the benefits, they were more likely to support Trump’s nomination of Kennedy as the Secretary for HHS and trust his anti-vaccine claims.
During the Senate hearing confirmation, Kennedy seemed to state that he would not undermine vaccines and stated his support for the childhood schedule. He also confirmed that he would not change existing vaccine recommendations. However, he also refused to acknowledge that the COVID-19 vaccine saved millions of lives and asserted that the government does not have a proper vaccine safety monitoring system. Additionally, he refused to state that vaccines do not cause autism despite the large body of evidence showing that there is no link between vaccines and autism rates. He claimed that there are other studies suggesting a link between vaccines and autism; a paper stated a correlation between vaccines and autism but Jeffrey S. Morris, director of the division of biostatistics at the University of Pennsylvania’s Perelman School of Medicine expressed that there are severe methodological issues in it.
Furthermore, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) committee’s June meeting to recommend the COVID-19 vaccine has not been scheduled yet. Some scholars perceive Kennedy’s COVID-19 vaccine skepticism as dangerous as his words can have repercussions on the general public. For example, Tony Yang from the Center for Health Policy and Media Engagement at George Washington University stated that one prominent anti-vaccine figure can ignite a public health crisis, referring to Kennedy. People who have a favorable view of Trump (52 percent) compared to Harris (37 percent) were also more likely to also have a favorable view of Kennedy. Additionally, only 36 percent of Republicans believe the government should require vaccines and are more likely to refuse the COVID-19 vaccine— the same anti-vaccine rhetoric promoted by Secretary Kennedy.
Kennedy’s Response to the Measles Outbreak and Vaccination
In 2019, there was a measles outbreak in American Samoa where 5,700 cases and 83 deaths occurred. Prior to the outbreak, Secretary Kennedy visited the region and questioned the safety and efficacy of vaccines, contributing to vaccine hesitancy among the community. Soon after his visit, there was a measles outbreak in the community and the Ministry of Health of American Samoa cited Kennedy’s visit and rhetoric as exacerbating vaccine hesitancy at a crucial moment. The Minister of Health referred to the ripple effect— Secretary Kennedy’s anti-vaccine message resulted in a decrease in community trust in vaccines, undermining local health authorities’ work in providing vaccine coverage.
Additionally, in March 2025, 250 people in Texas, Oklahoma, and New Mexico fell sick from Measles, with one reported adolescent death. In response, Margaret Doll, an epidemiologist at Albany College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences in New York, stated the low number of measles vaccinations puts the U.S. “dangerously close” to losing ‘elimination’ status for measles. Since 95 percent of the population must have the measles vaccine to reach herd immunity, the number being below 93 percent in the US poses a public health threat at a time of vaccine skepticism.
In response to the measles outbreak, Secretary Kennedy said that HHS is currently providing vitamin A to measles patients for treatment because it can “dramatically” reduce measles deaths. However, medical experts have stated that Vitamin A is not an antiviral treatment against measles which means that it does not prevent infections. Dr. Scott Weaver, director of the Institute for Human Infections and Immunity at the University of Texas Medical Branch stated that while good nutrition and supplements can promote a healthy immune system, it is not a substitute for vaccination.
Kennedy’s Response to the Flu Outbreak and Vaccination
The U.S. is currently in a severe flu season. According to the CDC, 86 children and 19,000 adults have already died in this flu season. In the midst of this flu season, there was a meeting scheduled between the FDA and the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee to discuss next year’s flu vaccine distribution. However, FDA officials canceled the meeting without any explanation. At this time of Secretary Kennedy leading HHS and strongly questioning vaccine efficacy, it leads to growing challenges to enforce flu vaccination.
Perspectives on Vaccines
Public Health Advocates
From a public health standpoint, vaccinations are considered among the most impactful tools for preventing disease, reducing mortality, and enhancing global well-being. Few medical interventions rival vaccines in their cumulative impact on population health, having significantly contributed to increased life expectancy and reductions in infant mortality worldwide. Vaccination has led to the global eradication of smallpox–which alone claimed an estimated 300 million lives in the 20th century–the elimination of polio and rubella in multiple regions, and the eradication of measles in the U.S. by 2000, though it has since resurged due to declining vaccination rates. The routine immunization of children in the U.S. now targets 16 vaccine-preventable diseases, with each fully vaccinated birth cohort estimated to prevent 14 million infections, avoid 33,000 premature deaths, and save nearly $43 billion in combined medical and indirect costs.
Institutions like the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the World Health Organization (WHO) continue to prioritize immunization through global awareness campaigns, targeted messaging, and collaborations with national health systems. Efforts such as the Measles Initiative have delivered vaccines to over 700 million children and prevented approximately 4.3 million childhood deaths since 2001. In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, global public health systems have had to adapt rapidly to new technologies like mRNA vaccines, which offer faster development but demand higher levels of public trust for successful implementation.
Public health leaders have long advocated for vaccine mandates–such as school immunization requirements–as essential tools for protecting community health, particularly for vulnerable populations like the immunocompromised. A notable example is California’s Senate Bill 277, which eliminated personal and religious exemptions for school-entry vaccines in 2015 in response to growing concerns over preventable disease outbreaks. At the same time, building and sustaining public trust has become a central priority for health agencies, especially in the post-COVID era marked by misinformation, fluctuating health guidelines, and political polarization. To address these challenges, agencies are increasingly investing in evidence-based communication strategies. The CDC’s “Vaccinate with Confidence” campaign exemplifies this approach by providing accessible, science-backed information and actively controlling misinformation. Trust in vaccines and the healthcare system is critical for vaccine acceptance, as public health programs must continue monitoring trust levels while tailoring communication to diverse cultural, social, and political contexts. These efforts are vital to achieving high vaccine coverage and preventing future outbreaks.
Personal Freedom & Autonomy Advocates
Vaccine mandates often raise ethical concerns regarding bodily autonomy, informed consent, and government intervention in personal healthcare decisions. Advocates for personal freedom argue that individuals should retain the right to make medical choices for themselves and their children without government coercion. This viewpoint gained prominence during the COVID-19 pandemic, as emergency mandates and swift policy changes sparked debates over the extent of state power in public health interventions. A Nevada resident’s letter to the state legislature exemplifies these concerns, framing vaccine mandates as violations of basic human rights. The author questions how any governing body can require someone to undergo a medical procedure that may be harmful or conflict with their religious beliefs, highlighting the importance of informed consent. The letter critiques reliance on the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) for monitoring adverse effects, describing mandates as “unethical and unscientific” in light of perceived underreporting of vaccine-related harm.
These ethical debates extend beyond adults to minors, especially when parents object to vaccinations sought by their children. While most states currently give parents the final say, some local policies, such as Washington, D.C.’s Minor Consent for Vaccination Amendments Act of 2020 allow minors to receive vaccines without parental consent if they demonstrate the capacity for informed decision-making. This growing recognition of minors’ healthcare autonomy reflects the evolving legal landscape around personal freedom and public health. Additionally, most states offer medical exemptions, while many provide religious or philosophical exemptions. However, in response to disease outbreaks, some states have repealed non-medical exemptions, further complicating the balance between individual rights and public health.
Legal and Ethical Debates
Vaccine mandates have become a focal point of legal and ethical debates, particularly during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. In response to outbreaks like measles and broader public health threats, many governments have shifted the voluntary vaccination policies to mandates aimed at balancing individual freedom with community safety. Supporters argue that the state has a duty to protect public health, especially when voluntary efforts fall short. Critics, however, raise concerns about government overreach and infringement on personal autonomy–concerns heightened by the rapid rollout of COVID-19 vaccines.
In addition to the ethical debates, legal battles over vaccine mandates have intensified, during the COVID-19 pandemic, highlighting tensions between government authority, individual rights, and religious freedom. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton successfully sued the Biden Administration over its mandate for federal contractors, arguing it exceeded constitutional limits; the policy was later withdrawn. Religious objections have also led to high-profile cases, such as
Lisa Domski, a Catholic IT worker awarded nearly $13 million after being fired for refusing the
vaccine due to concerns about fetal cell use. Although Catholic leaders stated the vaccine did not violate church teaching, courts often deter an individual’s interpretation of faith. These cases reflect ongoing legal conflicts over the balance between public health policy and constitutional protections.
The ethical debate is further complicated by personal, religious, and philosophical objections, as well as widespread distrust in government and pharmaceutical companies. While exemptions exist in most states, studies show they may contribute to higher outbreak risks, creating tension between individual liberties and public protection. In healthcare settings, mandates are often seen as necessary to protect vulnerable patients, guided by ethical principles like the “least infringement,” which recommends mandates only when other strategies fail. Ultimately, vaccine mandates present a complex challenge for policymakers seeking to respect personal choice while safeguarding public health.
Conclusion
It is abundantly clear that vaccines have become a prominent political issue in recent years. From school policies to business policies to federal policies the proper method for regulating vaccination is heavily contested. However, it is critical to remember that vaccination is a health issue and the over-politicization of health issues can cause a distrust of science amongst the general public, leading to hesitancy and fear. This approach to vaccination has caused outbreaks of long-eradicated diseases, like measles in Texas. The measles outbreak and subsequent deaths display the dangers of a lack of community-wide immunization for adults and children alike. The appointment of a Health and Human Services Secretary who has publicly questioned vaccine efficacy and promoted alternative treatments has led health professionals to express concern about a potential worsening of public health outcomes. Measles should remain eradicated, and its resurgence is evidence that other infectious diseases may soon do the same. That is why disinformation campaigns surrounding vaccines are so dangerous, and public health professionals must regain public trust to preserve immunity in the United States.
