Robert F. Kennedy Jr. moves to ban U.S. scientists from publishing in major medical journals deemed “corrupt,” while stripping COVID vaccine recommendations for children and pregnant women in a sweeping health system overhaul.
Key Takeaways
- HHS Secretary Kennedy plans to prohibit federal scientists from publishing in prominent journals like The Lancet and The New England Journal of Medicine, citing Big Pharma corruption.
- The Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) initiative proposes creating NIH-run journals to replace established medical publications for government research.
- Kennedy has immediately removed COVID-19 vaccine recommendations for healthy children and pregnant women from CDC guidelines.
- The administration is reorienting health policy to examine connections between chronic diseases and factors like ultra-processed foods and vaccination.
- Kennedy’s actions align with Trump’s pledge to reform what conservatives view as captured health institutions that failed Americans during the pandemic.
Shaking Up Medical Publishing
Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has announced plans to prohibit government scientists from publishing research in major medical journals, accusing publications like The Lancet, The New England Journal of Medicine, and JAMA of corruption. The controversial move is part of the Trump administration’s Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) initiative aimed at restoring public trust in American health institutions. Kennedy’s proposal would redirect taxpayer-funded research to newly created government-run journals under the National Institutes of Health, effectively cutting ties with established medical publications Kennedy claims are compromised by pharmaceutical industry influence.
“We’re probably going to stop publishing in the Lancet, New England Journal of Medicine, JAMA, and those other journals, because they’re all corrupt,” said Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
The move represents a dramatic shift in how government-funded medical research would be disseminated to the scientific community and public. Kennedy argues the NIH’s substantial funding would automatically confer legitimacy to these new publications. “It is anointing you as a good, legitimate scientist,” stated Kennedy, suggesting that the prestige of NIH backing would quickly establish credibility for the government’s in-house journals despite lacking the established peer-review systems of traditional publications.
Sweeping Changes to Vaccine Recommendations
In addition to the publishing overhaul, Kennedy announced immediate changes to longstanding CDC vaccine recommendations. In a significant policy shift, the administration has removed COVID-19 vaccines from the recommended immunization schedule for healthy children and pregnant women. This decision directly counters previous CDC guidance and represents the administration’s promised pivot away from pandemic-era health policies that many conservatives viewed as overly aggressive and not sufficiently supported by evidence.
“I couldn’t be more pleased to announce that as of today, the COVID vaccine for healthy children and healthy pregnant women has been removed from the CDC recommended immunization schedule,” announced Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
NIH Director Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, who gained prominence during the pandemic for his opposition to lockdowns and questioning of mainstream COVID policies, supported the move, stating: “That ends today. It’s common sense. That’s good science.” The change aligns with the views of FDA Commissioner Dr. Marty Makary, who has been vocal about the lack of compelling evidence supporting universal COVID vaccination for low-risk populations. These policy shifts reflect the administration’s broader effort to reexamine public health guidance established during the Biden era.
Critics Warn of Scientific Isolation
Opposition to Kennedy’s publishing proposal has emerged from within the scientific community. Critics argue that restricting government scientists from publishing in peer-reviewed journals would damage American research credibility and isolate U.S. science from the global scientific community. They warn that creating government-only publication channels risks politicizing research findings and undermining the objective evaluation process that established journals provide through rigorous peer review systems maintained over decades or centuries.
“Banning NIH-funded researchers from publishing in leading medical journals and requiring them to publish only in journals that carry the RFK Jr. seal of approval would delegitimize taxpayer-funded research,” said Adam Gaffney, public health researcher and assistant professor at Harvard Medical School.
The changes come amid broader restructuring at HHS, with reports that approximately 20,000 federal workers have been dismissed since President Trump’s inauguration. This workforce reduction affects various health agencies and departments as the administration implements its promised Schedule F reclassification of federal employees. The MAHA Commission Report, which guides these changes, extends beyond publishing reforms to examine connections between American health challenges and factors like ultra-processed food consumption, vaccination practices, and environmental exposures—issues Kennedy has long advocated addressing.
Realigning Health Priorities
Kennedy’s actions reflect the Trump administration’s commitment to reshaping federal health agencies that many conservatives believe failed Americans during the pandemic. By challenging established medical publications and revisiting COVID vaccine recommendations, Kennedy is implementing the significant changes promised during the campaign. The MAHA initiative particularly emphasizes addressing declining children’s health in America, exploring potential connections between rising chronic disease rates and modern lifestyle factors, including diet and medical interventions.
The administration views these reforms as necessary corrections to what they characterize as the capture of health agencies by pharmaceutical interests and ideological bias. While supporters see these changes as long-overdue reforms that prioritize transparency and independent science, critics fear potential disruption to established scientific processes. As these policies take effect, their impact on American medical research, public health outcomes, and scientific standing will become clearer in the months ahead.
