A document circulated by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to justify Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s abrupt policy change on COVID-19 vaccines has drawn fierce criticism from leading medical experts. Titled “COVID Recommendation FAQ,” the memo was sent to members of Congress who questioned Kennedy’s decision to remove routine recommendations for pregnant women and healthy children—an action that bypassed the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) established review process. According to multiple specialists, the HHS briefing misrepresents legitimate peer-reviewed research, cites unpublished or disputed studies, and omits key evidence demonstrating vaccine safety, amounting to what one prominent OB-GYN professor labeled “willful medical disinformation.”
Background: A Controversial Appointment and Policy Shift
Robert F. Kennedy Jr., previously known for his anti-vaccine activism, was appointed HHS secretary earlier this year by President Donald Trump. On May 27, Kennedy announced via the social media platform X that the CDC would no longer recommend COVID-19 vaccinations for pregnant individuals or healthy children—a recommendation that had been in place since 2021, based on extensive clinical and real-world data supporting both safety and efficacy. Traditional CDC policy changes undergo a rigorous process led by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), which combines expert review, public comment, and formal vote; Kennedy’s announcement, however, entirely circumvented that established mechanism.
The HHS “COVID Recommendation FAQ” Document
In response to congressional inquiries about his rationale, Kennedy’s HHS team compiled a detailed FAQ, which remains unavailable on the agency’s public website. KFF Health News obtained a copy of the document, which spans more than 20 pages of text, charts, and selective study summaries. Rather than presenting a balanced assessment, the memo emphasizes purported risks—such as myocarditis and pericarditis—while downplaying or omitting data showing those risks are far lower following vaccination than after COVID-19 infection itself.
Expert Reactions: “Insulting to Congress”
Mark Turrentine, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Baylor College of Medicine, decried the memo’s scientific rigor. “It is so far out of left field that I find it insulting to our members of Congress,” he said. “Congress relies on these agencies to provide valid information, and it’s just not there.” Similarly, Neil Silverman, director of the Infectious Diseases in Pregnancy Program at UCLA’s David Geffen School of Medicine, warned that many legislators and their staff lack the specialized expertise to dissect each citation, leaving them vulnerable to “being hoodwinked along with everyone else who has had access to this document.”
Selective and Unpublished Sources
At least two of the document’s cornerstone references have never undergone peer review. One is a preprint released on a public server in mid-2024, which carries a clear disclaimer: “This report has yet to be evaluated and should not guide clinical practice.” That study focused exclusively on adolescent hospitalization data and did not compare outcomes between vaccinated individuals and those who contracted COVID-19. Nonetheless, the HHS memo cites it as proof that COVID-19 vaccination, rather than SARS-CoV-2 infection, poses a unique risk of myocarditis and pericarditis.
Medical specialists point out that this portrayal directly contradicts a wealth of peer-reviewed research demonstrating that cardiac inflammation is significantly more common—and often more severe—after COVID-19 illness than after vaccination. Moreover, rates of vaccine-associated myocarditis in young males have declined sharply since dosing intervals were extended and booster recommendations were adjusted.
Distortions of Legitimate Studies
Beyond unpublished work, the HHS document mischaracterizes several respected, peer-reviewed publications. In one instance, it claims that a study examining pregnancy outcomes found “increased placental blood clotting” among vaccinated mothers. Yet the cited paper contains no mention of placental clotting or any adverse thrombotic events in its 1,200-participant cohort. “I’ve read it three times, and I cannot find that anywhere,” said Turrentine, who would grade the HHS memo as an “F” for evidence quality.
Another study on real-world vaccine safety in pregnancy—which reported no statistically significant difference in miscarriage, preterm birth, or neonatal complications between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals—was instead summarized as identifying serious safety signals. When contacted, the study’s lead investigators confirmed that no such adverse findings existed in their data.
Omission of Contextual Evidence
Perhaps most telling is what the HHS memo leaves out. Decades of vaccine safety monitoring, including the CDC’s Vaccine Safety Datalink and the FDA’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), have repeatedly affirmed that COVID-19 vaccines have an excellent safety profile in adults, children, and pregnant populations. Large registry studies from Israel, Canada, and multiple U.S. health systems show no increase in birth defects, stillbirths, or severe maternal complications following mRNA vaccination.
Despite extensive data, the FAQ document fails to reference any of these landmark analyses. Instead, its authors appear to have hand-picked smaller studies whose preliminary or disputed results align with Kennedy’s preexisting skepticism.
Political Implications and Congressional Response
The partisan fallout was swift. On June 4, Representatives Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) and Kim Schrier (D-Wash.) introduced legislation requiring that all future vaccine schedule changes originate with ACIP recommendations—effectively barring unilateral alterations by the HHS secretary. Kennedy responded on June 9 by announcing he would replace all 17 ACIP members, citing supposed conflicts of interest, and appointed eight new members, several of whom openly criticized pandemic-era vaccination mandates.
Republican lawmakers who are themselves medical doctors—including Senators Bill Cassidy (R-La.) and Representatives of both parties on the Energy and Commerce Committee—reportedly received the “COVID Recommendation FAQ” but have declined public comment on its scientific merits. C.J. Young, deputy communications director for the House Energy and Commerce Committee, noted that such internal memos had traditionally helped clarify policy shifts; this time, however, “we didn’t see this level of sloppiness or inattention to detail under the first Trump administration.”
Expert Commentary: The Perils of Politicizing Public Health
Sean O’Leary, chair of the Committee on Infectious Diseases for the American Academy of Pediatrics and assistant professor at the University of Colorado School of Medicine, denounced the approach as “RFK Jr.’s playbook”—a pattern of cherry-picking favorable or questionable data to bolster a predetermined narrative. According to O’Leary, cherry-picked studies and outright distortions not only threaten public trust but also put vulnerable populations—particularly pregnant people and children—at risk by discouraging lifesaving vaccination.
Public health communicators warn that reducing vaccine confidence can have ripple effects beyond COVID-19, undermining routine childhood immunizations against measles, pertussis, and other preventable diseases. “We are seeing resurgences of measles and mumps because of pockets of vaccine hesitancy,” said O’Leary. “This memo jeopardizes decades of progress.”
HHS Defense: “Following the Data and the Science”
In response to criticism, Andrew Nixon, HHS director of communications, asserted that the document “raises legitimate safety concerns” and defended its authorship without naming individual contributors. Nixon insisted, “There is no distortion of the studies in this document. The underlying data speaks for itself.” Yet officials have not provided any detailed counter-analyses to refute the concerns raised by independent experts.
The Path Forward: Restoring Scientific Integrity
The controversy spotlights broader tensions between political appointees and career public health professionals. Many CDC scientists and FDA regulators are reportedly unsettled by the abrupt vaccine policy reversal and the quality of evidence presented to Congress. To restore credibility, advocates argue that HHS should re-engage ACIP, publicly release all underlying data, and subject any policy memos to independent expert review before dissemination.
READ MORE: Research Links More Fruits, Veggies to Better Sleep
Rep. Pallone and Rep. Schrier’s proposed bill—to reinstate ACIP as the gatekeeper for vaccine recommendations—seeks to enshrine such safeguards in law. “We need clear, transparent processes for vaccine policy that are insulated from political influence,” Schrier said in a floor statement. “Our constituents deserve to know these decisions rest on robust, peer-reviewed science.”
Conclusion
The HHS “COVID Recommendation FAQ” document exemplifies the dangers of sidelining established scientific processes in favor of selective or weakly vetted evidence. Experts warn that misrepresenting vaccine safety data not only undermines public trust but also imperils the health of pregnant people and children. As Congress weighs legislative remedies and HHS leadership faces mounting scrutiny, the controversy underscores a fundamental principle: vaccine policy must be grounded in transparent, rigorously reviewed science—nothing less.
