U.S. Axes Number of Recommended Childhood Vaccines in Blow to Public Health
January 5, 2026
3 min reading
Add us on GoogleAdd SciAm
U.S. cuts recommended childhood vaccines in major blow to public health
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is reducing the number of vaccines recommended for children to those that protect against 11 diseases instead of the protections against 17 diseases it previously recommended.
Hepatitis B vaccines are among those affected by the CDC’s recently announced changes to the vaccination schedule.
Alyssa Pointer for the Washington Post via Getty Images
The top public health agency in the United States on Monday reduced the number of vaccines recommended for children. The move came just weeks after President Donald Trump ordered health officials to bring the nation’s vaccination schedule in line with that of “developed peer nations” and months of actions by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., a longtime vaccine skeptic, undermined established vaccine science.
In practice, this means that the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) will no longer recommend shots to protect against 17 diseases, but against 11. Experts say these changes, which take effect immediately, will put children at risk.
“This is just a continuation of Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s war on vaccines,” said Paul Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center and professor of pediatrics at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.
On supporting science journalism
If you enjoy this article, please consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscription. By purchasing a subscription, you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.
“I think he’s just trying to get the public to perceive vaccines as optional, as something you can reasonably choose not to get,” adds Offit, who served on a CDC vaccine advisory committee before being fired by Kennedy earlier this year. According to STATUSthat panel was not involved in Monday’s announcement.
The CDC now recommends that all children receive vaccines against polio, measles, mumps and rubella, chickenpox, Haemophilus influenzae type B, pneumococcal disease, HPV, diphtheria, and pertussis. High-risk groups may also be recommended shots for hepatitis A, hepatitis B, meningococcus ACWY, meningococcus B, and respiratory syncytial virus, or RSV. For other illnesses, including rotavirus, COVID-19 and seasonal flu, the agency suggests people talk to their doctor.
“It is [a] A massive, unprecedented change that undoes decades of success with childhood vaccines, ultimately making it harder for Americans to access vaccines,” says Katelina Jetelina, an epidemiologist who started and helped edit the popular newsletter “Your Local Epidemiologist.” “Fewer children will be vaccinated and children will be harmed by this decision,” she adds.
“This is a completely unscientific way of doing things and it’s not evidence-based,” says Angie Rasmussen, a virologist at the University of Saskatchewan.
“People won’t know what they’re supposed to do,” she said, adding that many people may end up not getting vaccinated on time.
The CDC’s shift away from making vaccines like rotavirus or meningitis a matter of “shared clinical decision-making” is particularly worrisome in the case of diseases that most people consider rare — a sentiment that stems directly from the success of vaccines, says Peter Chin-Hong, a professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco.
The United States has had “decades of success” in fighting childhood illnesses, he said. New policies threaten this legacy. “Until now, we have been the benchmark for childhood disease prevention that other countries have admired. »
The American Academy of Pediatrics denounced the move, saying it “will sow more chaos and confusion and undermine confidence in vaccinations. This is no way to make our country healthier.” The organization said in the same statement that it continues to support vaccination against diseases abandoned by the CDC and is committed to issuing its own recommendations.
The decision will likely be challenged in court.
Additional reporting by Tanya Lewis and Lauren Young.
Editor’s Note (01/05/26): This article was edited after publication to include updated information. This is breaking news and may be updated at a later date.
It’s time to defend science
If you enjoyed this article, I would like to ask for your support. Scientific American has been defending science and industry for 180 years, and we are currently experiencing perhaps the most critical moment in these two centuries of history.
I was a Scientific American subscriber since the age of 12, and it helped shape the way I see the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of respect for our vast and beautiful universe. I hope this is the case for you too.
If you subscribe to Scientific Americanyou help ensure our coverage centers on meaningful research and discoveries; that we have the resources to account for decisions that threaten laboratories across the United States; and that we support budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.
In exchange, you receive essential information, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, newsletters not to be missed, unmissable videos, stimulating games and the best writings and reports from the scientific world. You can even offer a subscription to someone.
There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you will support us in this mission.
