

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
"This ill-considered decision will sow further chaos and confusion and erode confidence in immunizations," warned the American Academy of Pediatrics president.
Leading US medical groups were among the critics who forcefully condemned the Trump administration's Monday overhaul of federal vaccine recommendations for every child in the country.
Doctors and public health advocates have been warning of such changes since the US Senate confirmed President Donald Trump's pick to lead the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), vaccine conspiracy theorist Robert F. Kennedy Jr., nearly a year ago.
Last month, in a presidential memorandum, Trump directed Kennedy and Deputy Secretary of Health and Human Services Jim O'Neill, who is also acting director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), "to review best practices from peer, developed countries for core childhood vaccination recommendations."
HHS said in a Monday statement that "after consulting with health ministries of peer nations, considering the assessment's findings, and reviewing the decision memo" presented by National Institutes of Health Director Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, Food and Drug Commissioner Dr. Marty Makary, and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Administrator Dr. Mehmet Oz, O'Neill "formally accepted the recommendations and directed the CDC to move forward with implementation."
O'Neill claimed that "the data support a more focused schedule" and the HHS secretary said that "after an exhaustive review of the evidence, we are aligning the US childhood vaccine schedule with international consensus while strengthening transparency and informed consent," but leading experts pushed back against their framing.
“Changes of this magnitude require careful review, expert and public input, and clear scientific justification. That level of rigor and transparency was not part of this decision."
Dr. Sandra Adamson Fryhofer, an American Medical Association trustee, said in a statement that the AMA "is deeply concerned by recent changes to the childhood immunization schedule that affects the health and safety of millions of children. Vaccination policy has long been guided by a rigorous, transparent scientific process grounded in decades of evidence showing that vaccines are safe, effective, and lifesaving."
“Changes of this magnitude require careful review, expert and public input, and clear scientific justification. That level of rigor and transparency was not part of this decision," she continued. "When long-standing recommendations are altered without a robust, evidence-based process, it undermines public trust and puts children at unnecessary risk of preventable disease."
"The scientific evidence remains unchanged, and the AMA supports continued access to childhood immunizations recommended by national medical specialty societies," the doctor added. "We urge federal health leaders to recommit to a transparent, evidence-based process that puts children's health and safety first and reflects the realities of our nation's disease burden."
American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) President Dr. Andrew D. Racine was similarly critical of the "dangerous and unnecessary" move, stressing that "the long-standing, evidence-based approach that has guided the US immunization review and recommendation process remains the best way to keep children healthy and protect against health complications and hospitalizations."
As Racine explained:
Said to be modeled in part after Denmark's approach, the new recommendations issued today by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention no longer recommend routine immunization for many diseases with known impacts on America's children, such as hepatitis A and B, rotavirus, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), flu, and meningococcal disease. AAP continues to recommend that children be immunized against these diseases, and for good reason; thanks to widespread childhood immunizations, the United States has fewer pediatric hospitalizations and fewer children facing serious health challenges than we would without this community protection.
The United States is not Denmark, and there is no reason to impose the Danish immunization schedule on America's families. America is a unique country, and Denmark's population, public health infrastructure, and disease-risk differ greatly from our own.
At a time when parents, pediatricians, and the public are looking for clear guidance and accurate information, this ill-considered decision will sow further chaos and confusion and erode confidence in immunizations. This is no way to make our country healthier.
The doctor urged parents who "have questions about vaccines or anything else" to speak with their pediatricians and pledged that the AAP "will continue to stand up for children, just as we have done for the past 95 years."
Dr. Robert Steinbrook, Health Research Group director at the consumer advocacy organization Public Citizen, also slammed Kennedy and his deputies for starting out "2026 by escalating and accelerating their mindless assault on the childhood and adolescent immunization schedule."
"Extreme and arbitrary changes to the childhood vaccination schedule without full public discussion and scientific and evidence-based vetting put children and families at risk and undermine public health," Steinbrook said. "The uncalled-for changes are likely to further erode trust in vaccines and decrease immunization rates, rather than increase confidence or boost vaccine uptake, as federal health officials assert. Once again, medical professional societies and states must act to prevent suffering and death from preventable diseases."
As the Associated Press noted Monday: "States, not the federal government, have the authority to require vaccinations for schoolchildren. While CDC requirements often influence those state regulations, some states have begun creating their own alliances to counter the Trump administration's guidance on vaccines."
Lawrence Gostin, founding chair of the O'Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law Georgetown University, predicted that "red states will mostly follow HHS guidance. Blue states will certainly keep the current schedule. We'll see a checkerboard of different rules across America. Infectious diseases will surge as pathogens don't respect state borders."
Ripping the CDC's move as "reckless and lawless," Gostin added that "RFK Jr. is plunging the nation into uncertainty and confusion. Will pharmacies and pediatricians offer vaccines without clear recommendations? Will insurers cover vaccines? Will school boards worry about liability? Needless hospitalizations and deaths are all but certain to occur."
“Good enough for a battleship, it’s good enough for me,” said Homeland Security chief Kristi Trump-Noem.
Secretary of War Pete Trump-Hegseth and Secretary of State Marco Trump-Rubio were the first to announce that they were changing their names in a display of loyalty to the president, but they were swiftly followed by the remaining cabinet members.
A rush of orders for new business cards and government IDs is expected, but key officials are likely to be the first to see their new names recognized on repainted doors and Trump accoutrements. Priority is expected to be given to Attorney General Pam Trump-Bondi, Secretary of the Homeland Security Kristi Trump-Noem, and Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Trump-Kennedy Jr.
Although Trump-Hegseth and Trump-Rubio were first out of the box, insiders believe that the changes were inspired by former Secretary Kennedy, who reportedly mused that if the center honoring his uncle was to be renamed The Donald J. Trump and the John F. Kennedy Memorial Center for the Performing Arts, maybe he would change his own name too.
The renaming of the Performing Arts Center followed a renaming that created the Donald J. Trump Institute for Peace and precedes the naming of a proposed group of guided-missile battleships of the United States Navy as the Trump class.
“Kinetically lethal,” said War Secretary Trump-Hegseth.
There have also been legislative proposals, not yet acted upon, to rename or add the Trump name to Dulles International Airport and D.C. Metro, and to place Trump’s likeness on Mount Rushmore as wellas the $100 bill.
Litigation is expected regarding the institutional renamings, and the three liberal justices of the Supreme Court asked the conservative block to recuse themselves on grounds of conflict of interest. Legal observers expect their request will be rejected by Chief Justice John G. Trump-Roberts and Associate Justices Clarence Trump-Thomas, Samuel A. Trump-Alito, Neil M. Trump-Gorsuch, Brett M. Trump-Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Trump-Barrett.
Secretary Rollins praises American farmers’ independence while advancing policies that strip them of market protections and empower their largest competitors.
Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins, in her recent USA Today and Newsweek opinion pieces, has worked hard to present herself as a champion of American farmers and a steward of healthier food options. Alongside Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., she spoke of the values these farmers embody—independence, grit, patriotism—and celebrated a $700 million regenerative agriculture initiative as proof that this administration is delivering for rural America.
But if you pull back the curtain on Secretary Rollins and the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), the narrative changes. What looks like a bold vision for “regeneration” quickly reveals itself as a political performance designed to distract from the USDA’s business-as-usual that props up industrial agriculture, not family farmers.
Secretary Rollins held up Alexandre Family Farm as the face of America’s regenerative future. But the truth: The farm is under scrutiny for animal abuse so severe it stands in direct contradiction to everything regenerative agriculture represents.
A USDA investigation obtained through the Freedom of Information Act documented multiple violations of organic and animal-welfare standards. The company has since admitted to serious abuses—including cows dragged with machinery, horn-tipping without pain relief, a teat cut off an animal with mastitis, diesel poured on animals, and animals dying after being left without adequate feed and care. No amount of marketing can turn that into regeneration. It is factory farming with better lighting.
A healthy America requires new, bold regenerative policies, not branding.
Choosing that farm as the model for USDA’s regenerative agenda signals to large industrial livestock companies that even amid serious animal cruelty, the USDA will still hand them a spotlight—and, in many cases, more public dollars. It also sends a message to the farmers Secretary Rollins claims to represent: Their government will not reward those who do the hard, unglamorous work of true regenerative agriculture. Instead, it will reward those who invest in scale, branding, and access, not better practices.
Secretary Rollins frequently praised states as “laboratories of innovation,” a sentiment that should have encouraged rural communities. Yet she is pushing the EATS Act and its twin, the Save Our Bacon Act—federal preemption bills that would wipe out states’ ability to regulate for safer, healthier, and more humane agricultural products sold within their borders. Notably, EATS and SOBA face bipartisan opposition from more than 200 senators and representatives in Congress.
You cannot celebrate state innovation while trying to make it illegal.
Backed by the factory-farm-aligned National Pork Producers Council, both bills would undermine more than 1,000 state health, safety, and animal-welfare laws. These bills would give the largest global agribusinesses the power to override local standards and flood American markets with cheap, low-welfare meat. And they would directly undercut the regenerative and higher-welfare family farms she claims to support.
The USDA’s $700 million regenerative package reveals the same pattern. In reality, it is a drop in the bucket. For decades, federal policy has pumped tens of billions of dollars into the nation’s largest factory farms. From 2018 to 2023 alone, the top 10,000 livestock feeding operations—mostly CAFOs—captured more than $12 billion in federal aid. The largest 10% of producers now take nearly 80% of subsidies, while small and midsize farms receive nothing.
Secretary Rollins knows this—yet her policies do nothing to change it.
The contradiction is glaring: She praises American farmers’ independence while advancing policies that strip them of market protections and empower their largest competitors. She leads an agency that celebrates rural resilience while continuing to concentrate power and resources in the hands of giant corporations.
True regenerative agriculture—the kind practiced by real farm families—requires pasture, biodiversity, humane animal treatment, and a financial landscape where independent farmers can survive. But these farmers are forced to compete against industrial operations that are more heavily subsidized and are now welcomed to call themselves “regenerative” regardless of their animal handling and herd-management practices.
Across the United States, regenerative ranchers, pasture-based dairies, higher-welfare hog farmers, and diversified small producers are already showing what a healthier and more resilient US food system can look like. Consumers want this shift. States are supporting it. Rural communities depend on it. Yet the USDA continues to position factory farming as the American standard—and now as the regenerative standard.
If this administration truly wants to protect American farmers, the path forward is clear.
Stop calling industrial operations regenerative when they are not. Stop pushing federal legislation that handcuffs states and abandons small producers. Stop directing billions toward industrial livestock giants while offering pennies to the people doing the real work of regeneration. And start listening—to independent farmers fighting consolidation, rural communities bearing the cost of industrial expansion, and consumers demanding humane treatment of animals.
A healthy America requires new, bold regenerative policies, not branding. We welcome Secretary Rollins to bring forward those types of policies.