Robert F. Kennedy’s vaccine reversal; From rebel to regulator

U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has taken a striking turn in his public health stance. The man once hailed as a firebrand critic of government overreach is now defending a framework that keeps COVID-19 vaccines on the market. This week, Kennedy announced that the shots would face new restrictions, but he emphasized that they remain available with a doctor’s approval.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) confirmed that COVID vaccines are no longer offered under emergency use authorization (EUA). Instead, they are marketed solely as fully licensed products. For Kennedy’s critics, this shift marks a transformation from outsider to insider, from rebel to regulator.

The FDA has issued full approval for:

• Moderna: Ages 6 months and older at high risk
• Pfizer: Ages 5 and older at high risk, and all adults 65+
• Novavax: Ages 12–64 at high risk, and all adults 65+

Pfizer’s earlier EUA covering children ages six months to four years has ended. The company now has full approval for higher-risk groups ages 5–64, plus all seniors. Moderna’s Spikevax has full approval for children as young as six months. Novavax holds approval for anyone 12–64 at higher risk and for all adults over 65.

These approvals send a mixed signal: regulators are tightening availability, yet ensuring shots remain widely accessible.

The bigger story may be that Americans have already moved on. Vaccine demand has collapsed. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), only 23% of U.S. adults received a COVID shot in the past year, and just 13% of children under 18 did.

Mary Holland, CEO of Children’s Health Defense (CHD), suggested Kennedy’s announcement will only accelerate this decline, “The Secretary’s announcement is likely to drive down demand even further, resulting in little more than a trickle of people still taking COVID boosters.”

If Kennedy aimed to strike a balance between freedom of choice and medical oversight, he may instead have underscored public skepticism.

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) added another twist. It announced that the FDA revoked the EUA for COVID-19 convalescent plasma (blood plasma collected from a person who has recovered from an infectious disease). Still, plasma remains available for certain immunocompromised patients under new approvals.

At the same time, the PREP Act shield remains in place. A December 2024 amendment, first issued by former Health Secretary Xavier Becerra, extended legal immunity for: vaccine makers, distributors, and doctors through 2029. In practice, this means patients who suffer vaccine-related harm cannot sue for negligence.

For critics, this protection undermines Kennedy’s promise of accountability. If the shots are safe, why maintain a liability shield?

The Kennedy of 2025 sounds nothing like the Kennedy of 2021 and 2022. Then, he warned about government overreach and questioned vaccine safety:

• “They have robbed us of our freedom.” — Sweden, November 2021
• “Vaccines have a negative efficacy after seven months.” — Jensen Show, 2022

Now, he defends a framework he claims delivers: “Science, safety, and common sense.” The contrast leaves supporters wondering whether he abandoned principle for power.

The contradictions pile up. Shots are restricted, yet still marketed. EUAs are revoked, yet products remain in circulation. The government shields manufacturers yet assures Americans the system protects them. As Mary Holland noted, “There is some lack of clarity about what this means, and we look forward to further clarification.”

The bigger problem may be trust. By trying to please both sides, skeptics and supporters, Kennedy risks alienating them all. His critics see betrayal, while his defenders may find his promises too vague to inspire confidence.

For everyday Americans, Kennedy’s announcement changes little in the short term. Shots remain available for anyone with a doctor’s recommendation, but uptake is already low. The larger impact may be political; Kennedy’s reputation as a truth-telling outsider has eroded.

The man who once rallied crowds against “medical tyranny” now presides over a system that protects pharmaceutical companies and prolongs emergency powers until 2029. Whether this shift reflects: compromise, strategy, or capitulation, one fact remains; public trust in COVID policy is more fractured than ever.

Kennedy’s reversal raises a haunting question: Has the freedom fighter become the very bureaucrat he once promised to fight?