A former patient recently sent me a message asking, “Did the government hide all the problems with vaccines for the last decade just to fatten up pharma’s profits and should I stop getting them-are they really necessary??” In light of the opioid crisis, which laid bare serious flaws in how government agencies and drug companies operate, the doubts she voiced are hardly surprising. What troubled me was that now that Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is leading the Department of Health and Human Services, for the first time in the more than 15 years I’ve known her, my former patient has begun to question the benefit of vaccines.
Stories like hers are why America’s leading medical organizations took the extraordinary step Monday of suing their own government, including Kennedy and HHS.
Objections to Kennedy’s leadership aren’t based on mere procedural violations.
A coalition that includes the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American College of Physicians, the American Public Health Association, the Infectious Diseases Society of America, the Massachusetts Public Health Alliance and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine is challenging Kennedy’s May directive removing Covid-19 vaccination recommendations for healthy children and pregnant women from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s immunization schedule. Kennedy made that decision without input from the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, the independent expert panel that has guided such decisions for decades.
Richard Hughes, the lead lawyer for the plaintiffs, said at a news conference Monday that the groups are “asking the court to order the secretary to announce on X that those immunization recommendations are now reinstated to the CDC immunization schedules.”
The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. An HHS spokesperson told NPR in a statement that “The Secretary stands by his CDC reforms.”
Objections to Kennedy’s leadership aren’t based on mere procedural violations. Kennedy, who spent years promoting debunked theories that vaccines aren’t safe, is systematically dismantling evidence-based medicine and imperiling the public’s health. Kennedy’s decision to fire all 17 ACIP members and install eight new members — several of them with anti-vaccine viewpoints — sends a chilling message to health care providers across America.
What makes the current American situation particularly troubling is that Kennedy isn’t just changing policy; he’s attacking the very foundation of how medical decisions should be made. When physicians review immunization schedules with their patients, they’re not just following government recommendations; they’re drawing on decades of rigorous scientific research, peer review and expert consensus. Kennedy’s actions force physicians into an impossible position: follow federal guidance that contradicts established medical evidence or provide what they consider standard care while potentially facing insurance and regulatory complications.
The legal strategy employed by the medical organizations is particularly noteworthy. By alleging violations of the Administrative Procedure Act and decrying what they call the arbitrary nature of Kennedy’s decisions, they’re establishing a framework that could protect scientific integrity across multiple health policy domains. This approach mirrors international cases where medical organizations have successfully challenged government overreach by emphasizing procedural protections and professional autonomy.
We shouldn’t need lawsuits to protect evidence-based medicine. The fact that America’s leading medical organizations feel compelled to take this unprecedented step speaks to how far we’ve strayed from the scientific principles that have guided public health policy for generations.
Direct legal challenges by medical organizations against federal health officials are extraordinarily rare in American history. The foundational case remains Jacobson v. Massachusetts from 1905, which established the government’s authority to enforce vaccination during public health emergencies. Since then, the medical establishment and federal health agencies have largely worked in concert, with scientific evidence guiding policy decisions.
We shouldn’t need lawsuits to protect evidence-based medicine.
As the note I received from my former patient illustrates, the consequences of what Kennedy has been doing are already proving to be problematic. Social media is filled with questions and suggestions around vaccine travel from people who’ve been confused by mixed messages from federal authorities. Insurance companies have had to either reinforce coverage for vaccines removed from recommended schedules or remain silent in the absence of clear policy. Health care providers are struggling to maintain consistent messaging about preventive care, which diminishes the time available to address patients’ other concerns.
This extends far beyond vaccines. Kennedy’s broader assault on public health infrastructure — from gutting CDC staff and data systems to sharing patient information with Immigration and Customs Enforcement — represents a fundamental threat to the trust that underpins effective health care delivery. When patients can’t trust that their government is providing evidence-based guidance, or that their private health information will be protected, the entire system suffers.
The stakes couldn’t be higher. If Kennedy succeeds in politicizing vaccine policy, then what’s next? Will climate change denial influence environmental health regulations? Will political ideology override scientific evidence in drug approvals? The precedent being set threatens to undermine not just vaccination programs, but the entire edifice of evidence-based health care.
As physicians, we took an oath to “first, do no harm.” That obligation extends beyond individual patients to the broader public health. The medical organizations filing this lawsuit aren’t just defending vaccination policy; they’re defending the principle that health care decisions should be grounded in science, not politics.
The outcome of this case will determine whether American medicine can maintain its scientific integrity in the face of political pressure. For the sake of every patient I treat, I hope the courts recognize what’s at stake.