January 5, 2026
3 min read
Add Us On GoogleAdd SciAm
U.S. Axes Number of Recommended Childhood Vaccines in Blow to Public Health
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is reducing the recommended number of vaccines for children to those that protect against 11 diseases instead of the protections against 17 illnesses that it recommended previously
Hepatitis B vaccines are among those affected by newly announced vaccine schedule changes at the CDC.
Alyssa Pointer for the Washington Post via Getty Images
The top public health body in the U.S. on Monday slashed the number of vaccines recommended for children. The move came just weeks after President Donald Trump ordered health officials to align the country’s vaccine schedule with those of “peer, developed countries” and months of actions driven by health secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., a long-time vaccine skeptic, that have undermined established vaccine science.
In practice, it means the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) will no longer recommend shots to protect against 17 diseases, but 11. Experts say the changes, which are effective immediately, will endanger children.
“This is just a continuation of Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s war against vaccines,” Paul Offit, the director of the Vaccine Education Center and a professor of pediatrics at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.
On supporting science journalism
If you’re enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. 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 make it so that the public perceives vaccines as optional, as something that you could reasonably choose not to get,” Offit, who used to sit on a CDC vaccine advisory panel before being fired by Kennedy earlier this year, adds. According to STAT, that panel wasn’t involved in Monday’s announcement.
The CDC now recommends that all children receive vaccines for polio, measles, mumps and rubella, chickenpox, Haemophilus influenzae type B, pneumococcal disease, HPV, diptheria and pertussis. High-risk groups may also be recommended shots for hepatitis A, hepatitis B, meningococcal ACWY, meningococcal B, and respiratory syncytial virus or RSV. For other diseases, including rotavirus, COVID-19 and the seasonal flu, the agency suggests people talk to their doctor.
“This is [a] massive, unprecedented change that blows up decades of success with childhood vaccines, ultimately making it harder for Americans to access vaccines,” says Katelina Jetelina, an epidemiologist who started and helps write the popular newsletter “Your Local Epidemiologist.” “Fewer children will be vaccinated and children will be harmed because of this decision,” she adds.
“This is a completely unscientific way of doing this, and it’s not evidence based,” says Angie Rasmussen, a virologist at the University of Saskatchewan.
“People aren’t going to know what they’re supposed to do,” she says, adding that many people could end up not getting their shots on time.
The CDC’s shift from making vaccines like the rotavirus or meningitis shot no longer routine but a matter of “shared clinical decision making” is especially worrisome in the case of diseases that most people see as rare—a sense that stems directly from the success of the vaccines, Peter Chin-Hong, a professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, says.
The U.S. has had “decades of success” in combating childhood disease, he says. The new policies threaten that legacy. “We had been the gold standard for the prevention of childhood diseases that other countries looked up to—until now.”
The American Academy of Pediatrics denounced the move, stating that it will “sow further chaos and confusion and erode confidence in immunizations. This is no way to make our country healthier.” The organization said in the same statement that it continues to support vaccination against the diseases dropped by the CDC and pledged to publish its own recommendations.
The decision is likely to be challenged in court.
Additional reporting by Tanya Lewis and Lauren Young.
Editor’s Note (1/5/26): This article was edited after posting to include updated information. This is a breaking news story and may be updated further.
It’s Time to Stand Up for Science
If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.
I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.
If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.
In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can’t-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world’s best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.
There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.
