The Dictatorship
Doctors clash with Trump administration over vaccines
It’s normal for parents, or anyone, to have questions about vaccinations — but what happens if your pediatrician urges a shot that’s under attack by the Trump administration?
That’s getting more likely: The nation’s leading doctors groups are in an unprecedented standoff with federal health officials who have attacked long-used, lifesaving vaccines.
The revolt by pediatricians, obstetricians, family physicians, infectious disease experts and internists came to a head when an advisory panel handpicked by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. urged an end to routine newborn vaccination against hepatitis B, a virus that can cause liver failure or liver cancer.
That vaccine saves lives, helped child infections plummet and has been given safely to tens of millions of children in the U.S. alone, say the American Academy of Pediatrics and other doctors groups that vowed Tuesday to keep recommending it.
But that’s not the only difference. That Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices now is examining possible changes to the entire childhood vaccination schedulequestioning certain ingredients and how many doses youngsters receive.
Pushing back, the American Academy of Pediatrics has issued its own recommendations for youngsters. Other medical groups — plus some city and state public health departments that have banded together — also are issuing their own advice on certain vaccines, which largely mirrors pre-2025 federal guidance.
This article is part of AP’s Be Well coverage, focusing on wellness, fitness, diet and mental health. Read more Be Well.
“We owe our patients a consistent message informed by evidence and lived experience, not messages biased by political imperative,” Dr. Ronald Nahass, president of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, told reporters Tuesday.
But Nahass acknowledged the inevitable consumer confusion, recounting a relative calling him last weekend for advice about hepatitis B vaccination for her new grandbaby.
“Most Americans don’t have a Cousin Ronnie to call. They are left alone with fear and mistrust,” he said, urging parents to talk with their doctors about vaccines.
New guidelines without new data concern doctors
Hepatitis B isn’t the only vaccine challenge. Kennedy’s health department recently changed a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention webpage to contradict the longtime scientific conclusion that vaccines don’t cause autism. Federal agencies also moved to restrict COVID-19 vaccinations this fall, and are planning policy changes that could restrict future flu and coronavirus shots.
But when it comes to vaccine advice, “for decades, ACIP was the gold standard,” said Dr. Jake Scott, an infectious disease physician and Stanford University researcher.
The panel once routinely enlisted specialists in specific diseases for long deliberations of the latest science and safety data, resulting in recommendations typically adopted not only by the CDC but by the medical field at large, he said.
Last week’s meeting of Kennedy’s panel, which includes vaccine skeptics, marked a radical departure. CDC specialists weren’t allowed to present data on hepatitis B, the childhood vaccine schedule or questions about vaccine ingredients. Few of the committee members have public health experience, and some expressed confusion about the panel’s proposals.
At one point, a doctor called in to say the panel was misrepresenting her study’s findings. And the panel’s chairman wondered why one dose of yellow fever vaccine protected him during a trip to Africa when U.S. children get three doses of hepatitis B vaccine. The hepatitis B vaccine is designed to protect children for life from a virus they can encounter anywhere, not just on a trip abroad. And other scientists noted it was carefully studied for years to prove the three-dose course offers decades of immunity — evidence that a single dose simply doesn’t have.
“If they’ve got new data, I’m all for it — let’s see it and have a conversation,” said Dr. Kelly Gebo, an infectious disease specialist and public health dean at George Washington University, who watched for that. “I did not see any new data,” so she’s not changing her vaccine advice.
Committee members argued that most babies’ risk of hepatitis B infection is very low and that earlier research on infant shot safety was inadequate.
Especially unusual was a presentation from a lawyer who voiced doubt about studies that proved benefits of multiple childhood vaccines and promoted discredited research pointing to harms.
“I don’t think at any point in the committee’s history, there was a 90-minute uninterrupted presentation by someone who wasn’t a physician, a scientist, or a public health expert on the topic — let alone someone who, who makes his living in vaccine litigation,” said Jason Schwartz, a vaccine policy expert at Yale University.
By abandoning data and the consensus of front-line doctors, the ACIP is “actively burning down the credibility that made its recommendations so powerful,” added Stanford’s Scott. “Most parents will still follow their pediatricians, and AAP is holding the line here. But the mixed messages are precisely what erode confidence over time.”
Parents already have a choice — they need solid guidance
Trump administration health officials say it’s important to restore choice to parents and to avoid mandates. That’s how the panel’s hepatitis B recommendation was framed — that parents who really want it could get their children vaccinated later.
Parents already have a choice, said Dr. Aaron Milstone of the American Academy of Pediatrics. The government makes population-wide recommendations while families and their doctors tailor choices to each person’s health needs.
But many doctors don’t — or can’t — do their own lengthy scientific review of vaccines and thus had relied on the ACIP and CDC information, Yale’s Schwartz noted.
They “rely on trusted expert voices to help navigate what is, even in the best of times, a complicated landscape regarding the evidence for vaccines and how best to use them,” he said.
That’s a role that the pediatricians and other doctors groups, plus those multistate collaborations, aim to fill with their own guidelines — while acknowledging it will be a huge task.
For now, “ask your questions, bring your concerns and let us talk about them,” said Dr. Sarah Nosal, of the American Academy of Family Physicians, urging anyone with vaccine questions to have an open conversation with their doctor.
___
The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Science and Educational Media Group. The AP is solely responsible for all content.
A Republican congressional candidate Jackson Lahmeyer has dropped out of a runoff for a U.S. House in Oklahoma following reports that he had sent intimate text messages to a woman who was not his wife.
“After prayerful consideration with my wife, Kendra, and my team over the last twenty four hours, I’ve made the difficult decision to suspend my campaign for Congress,” Lahmeyer, a candidate for Oklahoma’s 1st Congressional District, said in a statement Wednesday.
“I do not want to be a distraction to my family, my church, and the great people of Oklahoma’s 1st Congressional District, who deserve a strong conservative voice representing them in Washington,” he added.
President Donald Trump initially endorsed Lahmeyer, whom he called a “MAGA Warrior,” in May but withdrew his support following the controversy. Soon after, Trump endorsed Lahmeyer’s opponentMark Tedford, who now becomes the Republican nominee by default.
“I greatly appreciate Jackson Lahmeyer’s hard work under difficult circumstances — He has always been with me, and I will always be with him,” Trump wrote on Truth Social Wednesday. “But, when it comes to the current Congressional race for Oklahoma’s 1st Congressional District, I will be supporting America First Patriot, Mark Tedford. Mark is Pro Trump and MAGA all the way!”
Lahmeyer, a pastor Sheridan Church in Tulsa, centered his congressional campaign around his Christian faith.
Lahmeyer dropped out of the race after the Daily Mail reported Sunday that he had exchanged numerous romantic text messages with Caitlin Simmons Key, who worked as a fundraiser for his campaign. In one text message obtained by the Daily Mail, Lahmeyer allegedly invited Key into his hotel room. Key also alleged that Lahmeyer once professed his love to her.
“There’s a real problem with the fact that he’s married and a pastor,” Key told the outlet. “There is a responsibility when you are leading people in the name of Christ to hold yourself to a higher standard.”
Erum Salam is a breaking news reporter for MS NOW, with a focus on how global events and foreign policy shape U.S. politics. She previously was a breaking news reporter for The Guardian.
President Donald Trump has digitally signed the memorandum of understanding with Iran while at dinner in Versailles with French President Emmanuel Macron, Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif announced Wednesday.
Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian also digitally signed the memo, according to Sharif.
The agreement between the United States and Iran establishes a framework for negotiations aimed at permanently ending the conflict, which began when Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu directed a joint attack on Iran on Feb. 28.
Sharif said in a statement the agreement now goes into “immediate effect.” He noted that the first steps are for Tehran to “instantly reopen” the Strait of Hormuz and for the U.S. to “immediately lift” its naval blockade against Iran in the strait.
“The signing of this agreement at the highest level of the respective governments demonstrates the commitment of both sides to a diplomatic resolution of the conflict,” Sharif said in a statement.
Officials will hold a formal signing ceremony in Switzerland on Friday, Sharif said. A U.S. official did not respond to MS NOW’s questions on if an official document of the agreement will be released to the public.
According to the memothe U.S. and Iran have agreed to finalize a deal within 60 days, “extendable with mutual consent.” The agreement also calls for an “immediate and permanent termination of military operations on all fronts, including in Lebanon.”
Despite the memo’s explicit inclusion of Lebanon, Israeli leaders and U.S. officials continue to offer conflicting views on how that will be implemented. U.S. Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee said Israel’s war against the Iran-backed militant group Hezbollah is not part of the agreement, while Netanyahu vowed to remain in “security zones” in southern Lebanon.
Iran has also reaffirmed that it would not “procure or develop nuclear weapons,” which was a central issue Trump cited when defending the conflict in Iran. Both the U.S. and Iran also agreed to discuss how Tehran will dispose of its highly enriched uranium stockpile, with supervision from the U.S. and the International Atomic Energy Agency.
The agreement also includes an end to the U.S.’ naval blockade against Iran in the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s most important maritime trade routes, with a goal of restoring pre-war maritime traffic to the region.
“May this Memorandum of Understanding serve as an enduring foundation for greater understanding, mutual respect and shared prosperity for the complete region,” Shebaz said.
Emily Hung is an associate White House producer for MS NOW.
Erum Salam is a breaking news reporter for MS NOW, with a focus on how global events and foreign policy shape U.S. politics. She previously was a breaking news reporter for The Guardian.
The Dictatorship
The more Senate Republicans learn about Trump’s Iran deal, the more they don’t like it
Republicans started the week on Capitol Hill already uneasy about President Donald Trump’s still unreleased plan to end the U.S.-Iran war.
But by Wednesday, as details of the memorandum of understanding finally began to emerge, the unease turned into outright opposition.
“This is the worst foreign policy blunder in decades,” Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., posted online.
Cassidy, who recently lost his re-election bid to a Trump-backed primary challenger, said that under the memorandum, “Iran’s nuclear ambitions were not curbed, and they have learned that threatening the Strait of Hormuz works and will undoubtedly leverage it in the future.”
“Now, Iran gets to build brand-new infrastructure under this deal,” he added.
Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., who is not seeking re-election, argued the memorandum falls short given the costs of the conflict.
“We’ve lost two F-18s, several other air frames, 13 people have died, several of our Middle East partners have been attacked, 365 people have been injured,” Tillis told MS NOW, adding that the the U.S. had spent “$100 billion has been spent since the first kinetic strike.”
“I need more than 14 [bullet] points,” he said.
He later added that anyone who “is gushing over it being a great plan, I think, have insufficient information. Anybody complaining that it’s a bad plan, have insufficient information.”
According to a senior U.S. official, the memorandum — signed by President Donald Trump, Vice President JD Vance and Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad-Bagher Ghalibaf — outlines a list of commitments as the two sides kick off 60 days of negotiations on a final deal.
In addition to the U.S. ending its naval blockade and the Iranians reopening the Strait of Hormuz, the memorandum calls for the U.S. to take steps to “terminate all types of sanctions against the Islamic Republic of Iran.”
It calls for the U.S. to work with other Middle East partners to “develop a definitive, mutually agreed plan with at least $300 billion for the reconstruction and economic development of the Islamic Republic of Iran.” And the MOU says that “Iran will maintain the current status quo of its nuclear program, and the United States of America will not impose any new sanctions and will not deploy additional forces in the region.”
In particular, the $300 billion proposal is the source of GOP angst — even from some of the president’s fiercest defenders.
“History teaches that giving billions of dollars to theocratic lunatics who want to murder us is not a good idea,” Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, told reporters. “I think the president is receiving some very poor advice on this deal.”
His Texas colleague, Republican Sen. John Cornyn, told MS NOW, “I don’t like that part of the deal.”
He noted, “The president has the authority to negotiate,” but he added that Congress should have an “oversight role.”
While some Republicans were outright critical, many others tried a more tactful approach. Many said they were still waiting for more information.
Sen. Todd Young, R-Ind., told MS NOW he needed to “see the details” before really commenting on the emerging deal. But when pressed on some of the leaked details, he said the U.S. needed to “tighten the thumb screws if we want to get the sort of concessions required to secure or remove the nuclear material.”
Asked about the $300 billion reconstruction fund for Iran, which is supposed to be paid for by private investments from other countries, Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, said she was waiting to hear about a “corresponding win” for the U.S.
She said she wanted the Trump administration to present the deal to lawmakers “with an opportunity for us to actually ask those questions.”
And Senate Majority John Thune, R-S.D., who told reporters Wednesday that he still had not seen the final text, said, “There’s a bunch of things in here that I think we’re going to have questions about.”
“I need to hear more about it, and what the ideas are for implementation, and what the enforcement compliance mechanisms are,” he said.
To be sure, only a handful of Republicans directly praised the memorandum. Sen. Bernie Moreno of Ohio, told MS NOW he was “very happy” with the deal.
“I think it’s historic,” he said.
And Sen. Tommy Tuberville, R-Ala., told MS NOW he “would think” the memorandum is better than the Iran nuclear deal crafted during the Obama presidency.
But most Republicans approached by MS NOW insisted they had not yet seen the memorandum and therefore wanted to refrain from comment — even when MS NOW pressed about the topline aspects of the plan, like sanctions relief and the potential for $300 billion in assistance.
“Haven’t had a chance to read it yet. I’m sorry,” said Sen. Cynthia Lummis, R-Wyo.
“I’m not going to comment if I haven’t read it,” said Sen. John Curtis, R-Utah.
“I don’t know what’s in it yet, and that’s critical,” Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, told MS NOW. “I haven’t had a classified briefing yet, and that’s critical.”
But as Republicans learn more details about the agreement, reactions generally haven’t been positive. After spending years blasting the Obama-era Iran nuclear deal — particularly for the agreement sending “pallets of cash” to the Iranian regime — Republicans may have trouble swallowing some of the concessions in this agreement, even if it’s just a temporary deal paving the way to a larger pact in 60 days.
As Democrats have been pointing out, it will be practically more difficult for Trump to walk away from negotiations in August, with the pressure of midterms increasing and the prospect of higher gas prices more daunting.
In general, Democrats have cast the memorandum as an “abject failure,” though they’ve couched that disappointment with an insistence that they’re happy about a potential end to hostilities.
Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., who in recent months has spearheaded a Democratic effort to curtail the president’s war powers in Iran, said it sounded like “we’re giving a lot more to get a lot less than we got in the JCPOA” — a reference to the Obama-era deal, which was formally named the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.
Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., told MS NOW that “by virtually every goal that President Trump announced when this war began” — from regime change to cutting off Iran’s support for its proxies in the region to collecting the country’s nuclear material — “he’s failed.”
In particular, Coons took issue with the proposed sanction relief and the $300 billion for reconstruction, likening it to “rivers of cash to help the mullahs not just rebuild Iran but to build a stronger Iran.”
“I hope — but do not expect — to hear from my many colleagues who denounced the JCPOA as funneling ‘pallets of cash’ to Iran to similarly denounce this deal,” Coons said.
Trump has left himself some latitude on the deal — at least on the potential blame for a bad agreement.
On Wednesday, as he faced questions in France over the pending MOU, he explained why he continued to present Vance as a key negotiator of the deal.
“This way, if it works out, I’m going to take the credit,” Trump said. “If it doesn’t work out, I’m blaming JD.”
Julia Jester, Lillie Boudreaux, and Mychael Schnell contributed to this report.
Kevin Frey is a congressional reporter for MS NOW.
- Medication abortion restored in Missouri following court ruling
- White House confirms Vance trip to Switzerland delayed
- Special election for Swalwell’s open House seat heads to runoff
- Trump awards 3 Medals of Honor to war heroes
- Top Senate Democrat calls on FAA to reject White House arch approval pressure
- Matt Dunlap beats DCCC-backed candidate in primary for top Maine battleground
- Democrat Hannah Pingree and MAGA ally Bobby Charles will face off for Maine governor
- Pence-backed think tank joins push to keep kids’ safety bills out of AI package
- ‘Un-American’: Democrats attack Trump’s uneven disaster response
- OMB nominee touts plan to give Trump appointees power to kill grants
-
Politics1 year agoFormer ‘Squad’ members launching ‘Bowman and Bush’ YouTube show
-
The Dictatorship1 year agoLuigi Mangione acknowledges public support in first official statement since arrest
-
Politics1 year agoFormer Kentucky AG Daniel Cameron launches Senate bid
-
Uncategorized2 years ago
Bob Good to step down as Freedom Caucus chair this week
-
The Dictatorship1 year agoPete Hegseth’s tenure at the Pentagon goes from bad to worse
-
The Josh Fourrier Show2 years agoDOOMSDAY: Trump won, now what?
-
Politics1 year agoBlue Light News’s Editorial Director Ryan Hutchins speaks at Blue Light News’s 2025 Governors Summit
-
The Dictatorship9 months agoMike Johnson sums up the GOP’s arrogant position on military occupation with two words