Policy Backgrounders

HHS is responsible for managing 268 Federal advisory committees, significantly more than any other agency. As of Fiscal Year 2025, HHS has terminated 72, and 23 were classified as “administratively inactive,” leaving at least 173 active. These committees cover a wide range of topics, from functional areas such as the World Trade Center Health Program, which are typically managed by agencies within HHS such as the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), National Institutes of Health (NIH), and FDA, to broader committees such as President’s Council on Sports, Fitness, and Nutrition which HHS manages with support from other agencies.

The Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) governs how advisory committees operate. Congress, the President, and agencies use them to gain expertise and policy advice. Committees are required to operate with transparency and have a membership that is “fairly balanced in terms of the points of view represented and the functions to be performed by the advisory committee” (5 USC §1004(b)(2)). For HHS, these committees provide scientific, clinical, and stakeholder input to inform certain Federal decisions on health policy, regulation, research funding, and program implementation. Their recommendations, while generally not formally binding, often shape national standards, influence agency actions, and can guide legislative and regulatory priorities.

These committees often consist of subject matter experts, agency representatives, and stakeholder representatives. Appointing agencies vet committee members through an extensive process, including a security clearance background check, and appoint them to terms that each committee’s charter defines, typically ranging from two to eight years. A new Administration reviews committee membership and scope, making changes that can range from minor adjustments to extensive replacements.

Priorities Under Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

During his confirmation hearings, Senators from both parties sought guarantees that he would maintain the integrity of the advisory committee process, given its influence over health policy. Upon taking office, Secretary Kennedy’s welcoming remarks to HHS staff honed in on these committees, stating “we will remove conflicts of interest on the committees and research partners whenever possible or balance them with other stakeholders.”

In Secretary Kennedy’s first six months, HHS made a series of significant changes to health advisory committees. Multiple committees have been restructured, dissolved, or suspended. These actions marked a notable shift in how the Department receives expert input and have drawn close scrutiny from public health stakeholders and policymakers.

On February 19, the President signed an Executive Order which specifically called on HHS to terminate two advisory committees set up by the previous Administration. In March 2025, the Administration also terminated the Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee  (HICPAC) using that Order as authority; its charter had expired in January. Starting in 1991, HICPAC (operating under CDC) issued over 540 recommendations to help develop national guidelines on infection prevention in healthcare settings—including protocols for hand hygiene, personal protective equipment, isolation practices, and environmental cleaning. Members were reportedly informed that the committee would not be reestablished in early May. At the time, HICPAC was close to finalizing updated airborne pathogen guidelines (the first revisions since 2007). HICPAC’s mask recommendations had become controversial during the pandemic.

In June, HHS removed all 17 members of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices  (ACIP), the CDC’s expert panel responsible for making national vaccine recommendations. HHS stated this was intended to restore public trust, address potential conflicts of interest, and broaden the range of perspectives informing vaccine policy. Secretary Kennedy had criticized ACIP as “plagued with persistent conflicts of interest” resulting in the committee functioning as a “rubber stamp for any vaccine.” (However, a recent study found that apparent conflicts of interest had fallen to a historic low.)

The decision came shortly before a scheduled meeting on COVID-19 and other vaccine guidance (which FDA separately released on August 27). HHS replaced the members with new  appointees, some of whom have publicly expressed skepticism toward vaccine safety and allegedly promoted misinformation. Since the transition, the committee has issued updated positions on topics including thimerosal in flu vaccines and childhood immunization schedules.

On July 9, HHS canceled a scheduled meeting of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force  (USPSTF), an independent panel responsible for evaluating and recommending preventive health services such as screenings, counseling, and medications. The USPSTF’s recommendations help shape clinical guidelines and public health priorities; many private health insurers generally follow its recommendations for their coverage decisions. In its brief notice, HHS stated: “Moving forward, HHS looks forward to engaging with the Task Force to promote the health and well-being of the American people.” In late July, Secretary Kennedy reportedly removed all members of the committee without giving a stated reason. This followed a Supreme Court decision affirming the HHS Secretary’s authority over appointments to task force, raising the possibility of other future changes to the panel’s structure or operations.

Responses and Policy Implications

Secretary Kennedy’s reforms have prompted responses from the medical, scientific, and legal communities. After its dissolution, critics warned that without HICPAC’s Federal coordination role, responsibility for managing emerging infectious threats would shift to individual states, health systems, and facilities, potentially leading to inconsistent standards, fragmented responses, and greater vulnerability in high-risk environments such as hospitals and long-term care settings. Public health experts and labor organizations also raised concerns about reduced transparency and diminished accountability in the CDC’s policymaking process.

Similarly, commentary from outgoing ACIP members argued that the sudden changes risked reversing meaningful progress on US immunization policy, including access to lifesaving vaccines and growing concern toward the rise of dangerous and preventable illnesses. Another leading health care policy publication called the abrupt dismissal of ACIP members a “vaccine  policy crisis,” citing the lack of transparency behind the decision and the uncertainty it carried for providers, manufacturers, and state-level health officials. Finally, pharmaceutical industry leaders have warned that the overhaul introduces uncertainty for vaccine manufacturers by disrupting guidance timelines, demand forecasting, and coordination with regulatory approval timelines. In early July, six leading medical organizations sued Secretary Kennedy, challenging changes to COVID-19 vaccine recommendations and alleging that committee members’ removals undermine public health.