Can Robert F. Kennedy Eliminate Vaccine Rules as Head of HHS?

President-elect Donald Trump’s plan to appoint Robert F. Kennedy Jr., to lead the Health and Human Services (HHS) Department will put a prominent vaccine skeptic at the helm of the nation’s sprawling public health apparatus.
While Kennedy insists he is not anti-vaccine and claims he has never advised the public to avoid vaccination, he has repeatedly expressed opposition to vaccines. On a podcast, he stated, “There’s no vaccine that is safe and effective” and has urged people to resist CDC guidelines on childhood vaccination schedules.
The 70-year-old has promised to take a serious look at those who work for HHS and its agencies, including the Food and Drug Administration, the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. With his nomination, Kennedy will gain significant influence over federal public health policy, especially in areas related to vaccines.
However, while Kennedy’s position allows him to advocate for shifts in health agency priorities, his authority to eliminate existing vaccine regulations unilaterally is limited by several key factors.
The most significant limitation Kennedy would face in attempting to alter vaccine policies is statutory. Many vaccine-related policies and mandates are codified in federal laws enacted by Congress, placing them beyond the direct control of the HHS Secretary.
To change these laws, Kennedy would need congressional support for legislative action—a process requiring majority approval in both the House and Senate. This hurdle is especially challenging given that, although Republicans hold a majority in both chambers, Kennedy’s views on vaccines have sparked bipartisan concern, reducing the likelihood of broad legislative support for dismantling vaccine requirements.
Beyond legal constraints, the administrative process for changing health regulations imposes further limitations. The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) governs how federal agencies create and modify regulations, requiring a formal rule-making process. This process includes public notice, a period for public comment, and a thorough review, which adds time and transparency requirements.
Even if Kennedy wanted to initiate changes within HHS, the APA would mandate a comprehensive, documented process before any regulatory shifts could take effect. The APA’s rule-making framework makes it challenging for any HHS Secretary to impose rapid policy changes unilaterally, particularly for established vaccine mandates.
Vaccination requirements for school attendance and other public health mandates are frequently set at the state level, and the federal government has limited authority to override state-imposed vaccine rules.
While HHS and related agencies like the CDC can issue recommendations, states retain control over their public health policies, especially those related to vaccine requirements for schools and childcare centers. Kennedy’s role at HHS would therefore have minimal impact on state-level mandates, which are shielded from federal interference.