HHS scraps COVID vaccine schedule for children and pregnant women: 'It's common sense, and it's good science'



The Health and Human Services Department announced Tuesday that the COVID vaccine will be dropped from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's recommended vaccine schedule for healthy pregnant women and children.

By amending the vaccine schedule, HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is combatting the residual COVID hysteria from former President Joe Biden's administration. Kennedy made the highly anticipated announcement alongside Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, director of the National Institutes of Health, and Dr. Martin Makary, who serves as commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration.

"I couldn't be more pleased to announce that as of today, the COVID vaccine for healthy children and healthy pregnant women has been removed from the CDC recommended immunization schedule," Kennedy said.

'We're now one step closer to realizing President Trump's promise to make America healthy again.'

RELATED: Who is bankrolling the anti-MAHA movement?

RFK JR: “As of today, the COVID vaccine for healthy children and healthy pregnant women has been removed from the CDC recommended immunization schedule. We’re now one step closer to realizing President Trump’s promise to Make America Healthy Again.”

HUGE! pic.twitter.com/Zq5eRhdQkf
— TheBlaze (@theblaze) May 27, 2025

"Last year, the Biden administration urged healthy children to get yet another COVID shot, despite the lack of any clinical data, to support the repeat booster strategy in children," Kennedy said.

"That ends today," Bhattacharya added. "It's common sense, and it's good science."

Prior to the announcement, the CDC recommended the COVID vaccine to any person over 6 months old, particularly people over the age of 65, pregnant women, breastfeeding mothers, and women planning to conceive.

Despite the CDC's previous recommendations, several studies and medical professionals have indicated that the COVID vaccines are not as effective or as necessary as they were originally made out to be. Some even noted a range of adverse effects on children and pregnant women.

"There's no evidence healthy kids need it today, and most countries have stopped recommending it for children," Makary said.

RELATED: HHS scrapping COVID jab recommendations for pregnant moms and kids: Report

Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

This is just the latest effort from President Donald Trump's administration to restore faith in American institutions, especially when it comes to health. Just last week, Kennedy released his highly anticipated MAHA report, which shed light on potential root causes for chronic health issues like chemical exposure, ultra-processed foods, and over-medicalization of children.

"We're now one step closer to realizing President Trump's promise to make America healthy again," Kennedy said.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Why President Trump’s Prescription Drugs Order Promotes A Freer Market

Those bemoaning Trump’s tariffs should celebrate this opening of international markets to free trade and the flow of goods across borders.

Trump FDA Reveals Canada Will Play Major Role In Bringing Drug Prices Down

'For too long, Americans have been getting taken advantage of'

HHS scrapping COVID jab recommendations for pregnant moms and kids: Report



The Department of Health and Human Services is reportedly preparing to scrap its recommendation that pregnant women and kids get the COVID-19 vaccines. Individuals said to be familiar with the matter told the Wall Street Journal that the announcement is imminent and will coincide with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention kicking off a new vaccine approval framework.

While the relevant agencies apparently did not respond to the Journal's requests for comment, U.S. Food and Drug Commissioner Dr. Marty Makary provided a fairly strong indication this week that the change was coming.

Makary told Turning Point USA CEO Charlie Kirk that he would "love to see the evidence to show that giving young, healthy children another COVID-19 shot — you know, a sixth COVID booster — would help them, but that evidence does not exist, and so we're not going to rubber-stamp things at the FDA."

"I don't think you're going to see a push at the CDC to be pushing COVID shots in young, healthy children," continued Makary, adding that he expected an announcement on that front in the coming weeks.

Sources told the Journal that it would only be a matter of days.

At the time of publication, the CDC was still recommending that everyone ages 6 months and older get a COVID-19 vaccine.

'Connected to serious adverse events, including myocarditis and pericarditis, failed pregnancies, and deaths.'

The agency states on its website that getting the shot is especially important for individuals who have survived this long without one, geriatrics, pregnant women, those planning to conceive, and breastfeeding mothers. The agency urges parents to get their children 6 months to 4 years of age loaded up with two doses of the Moderna vaccine or three doses of the Pfizer vaccine if they were starting fresh.

As of April 26, 14.4% of pregnant women had received a 2024-25 COVID-19 vaccine and 13% of children 6 months to 17 years of age were up to date, CDC data shows.

RELATED: Jab first, ask questions never: Vaccine truths your doctor won't tell you

EKIN KIZILKAYA/iStock/Getty Images Plus

The CDC stuck with its recommendations until now despite credible warnings from Florida Surgeon General Dr. Joseph Ladapo and other experts; troubling scientific studies demonstrating the vaccines were not as safe and effective as advertised; glaring evidence that kids and teens were at low risk for COVID and could go without; and damning state-leveled allegations that one of the primary vaccine manufacturers sat on evidence that its COVID-19 vaccine "was connected to serious adverse events, including myocarditis and pericarditis, failed pregnancies, and deaths."

Just last month, a preprint study backed by the Florida Department of Health suggested that adults in the Sunshine State who received the Pfizer vaccine had "significantly higher risk of 12-month all-cause, cardiovascular, COVID-19, and non-COVID-19 mortality" than those who received the Moderna shot.

A study conducted by the Global COVID Vaccine Safety Project — a Global Vaccine Data Network initiative supported by both the CDC and the HHS — and published last year in the journal Vaccine detailed troubling links between the AstraZeneca, Moderna, and Pfizer vaccines and medical conditions such as Guillain-Barré syndrome, brain and spinal cord inflammation, Bell's palsy, and convulsions.

Another peer-reviewed study published last year in the pharmacotherapy journal Therapeutic Advances in Drug Safety indicated that "COVID-19 vaccination is strongly associated with a serious adverse safety signal of myocarditis, particularly in children and young adults resulting in hospitalization and death."

"COVID-19 vaccines induce an uncontrolled expression of potentially lethal SARS-CoV-2 spike protein within human cells, have a close temporal relationship of events, and are internally and externally consistent with emerging sources of clinical and peer-reviewed data supporting the conclusion that COVID-19 vaccines are deterministic for myocarditis, including fatal cases," said the study.

'The current risks of serious adverse events or deaths outweigh the benefits.'

Texas cardiologist Peter McCullough, a leading critic of the vaccines, said in a statement Thursday, "Two presidents, three HHS Secretaries, three FDA Commissioners, and nearly five years into the disastrous COVID-19 vaccine debacle, women and children receive long overdue yet welcome news. After record vaccine injuries, disabilities, and death, America is wondering will any of these leaders be held accountable?"

Dropping the recommendations appears to be a half measure, given that HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. previously fought to revoke authorization of COVID-19 vaccines altogether.

RELATED: Mandates, masks, and mayhem: Never again!

Photographer: Al Drago/Bloomberg via Getty Images

In a petition he filed with the FDA on May 16, 2021, Kennedy said the agency should revoke all emergency use authorizations and refrain from approving future EUAs for any COVID vaccine for all demographic groups "because the current risks of serious adverse events or deaths outweigh the benefits, and because existing, approved drugs provide highly effective prophylaxis and treatment against COVID, mooting the EUAs."

Kennedy noted further that the agency should specifically spare children and pregnant women from the novel vaccines.

Kennedy's warnings and requests evidently fell on deaf ears.

In its final weeks, the Biden HHS extended liability protection to COVID-19 vaccine manufacturers and administrators through Dec. 31, 2029, precluding vaccine recipients who reportedly end up injured or their surviving family members from holding those responsible to account. This was the latest of several such extensions.

The reports of the HHS dropping the vaccine recommendations and other moves made in recent months by the Trump administration have elements of the medical establishment clutching pearls.

Paul Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, told the New York Times, "I think that we are in the midst of watching the vaccine infrastructure being torn down bit by bit."

"I think everything is a target," said Tara Smith, an epidemiologist at Kent State University College of Public Health.

"Overturning the recommendation means that insurance companies will no longer have to cover these vaccines," Dorit Reiss, a law professor at UC Law San Francisco, complained to the health publication Stat.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

More Than 100 Organizations Plead With FDA To Protect Women From Dangerous Abortion Drug

'The evidence strongly suggests that mifepristone is unacceptably dangerous, and those who removed such protections put American women directly in harm’s way.'

Will the Supreme Court rein in rogue judges — or rubber-stamp them?



Nationwide injunctions — once unknown in American legal tradition — have exploded in popularity, driven by single federal district court judges eager to block policies enacted by the political branches. Supreme Court justices appointed by presidents of both parties have raised alarms about the trend.

Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett have criticized these injunctions in written opinions. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Elena Kagan have raised similar concerns in public comments. In the 2018 Trump v. Hawaii decision, Thomas called them “legally and historically dubious.” Speaking at a Ninth Circuit judicial conference, Kagan reportedly remarked, “It just can’t be right that one district judge can stop a nationwide policy in its tracks and leave it stopped for the years that it takes to go through the normal process.”

The question before the court is fundamental: Do elections matter, or do lower-court judges run the country?

Solicitors general from both parties have also objected. Joe Biden’s solicitor general, Elizabeth Prelogar, warned last year that nationwide injunctions cause “substantial disruption” to executive functions. Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris earlier this year called them an “epidemic.”

The Supreme Court will now decide whether these bipartisan objections reflect genuine constitutional concerns — or partisan convenience. Take Mary McCord, for example. A former Obama White House official and adviser to the January 6 Committee, she co-signed the respondents’ brief defending the nationwide injunctions in this case. But would she have supported them when courts used them against her own administration?

The Supreme Court will hear arguments Thursday in Trump v. CASA, Inc., along with the related cases Trump v. Washington and Trump v. New Jersey. At issue is the Trump administration’s “modest request” to limit the scope of nationwide injunctions issued by district judges in Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington state. These injunctions blocked enforcement of the president’s day one executive order on birthright citizenship, even before courts ruled on the legal merits.

(Full disclosure: I submitted a brief in the case on behalf of the Claremont Institute’s Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, urging the court to restore the original meaning of the 14th Amendment — one that excludes both temporary visitors and illegal immigrants from automatic citizenship.)

The case against universal injunctions follows directly from the Constitution. Article III, Section 2 limits judicial power to “cases or controversies,” designed to resolve disputes between parties, not to dictate national policy. Nationwide injunctions go well beyond the plaintiffs and defendants involved.

Article III, Section 1 vests judicial authority in the Supreme Court and “such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.” District courts possess geographically defined jurisdictions. A single federal judge in, say, Maryland or Washington state was never meant to issue rulings that bind the entire country.

Nationwide injunctions routinely disrupt government operations. Different district courts can issue conflicting injunctions, creating legal chaos and making compliance virtually impossible. That’s exactly what happened in 2022 after the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision overturned Roe v. Wade. Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk of the Northern District of Texas issued a nationwide injunction blocking the FDA’s approval of mifepristone, a common abortion drug. Just hours later, Judge Thomas Rice in the Eastern District of Washington issued a competing order — this one prohibiting the FDA from altering its approval of the same drug in half the country.

RELATED: Injunction dysfunction or tyrant disruption? Trump-era judicial paralysis explained

designer491 via iStock/Getty Images

These injunctions also fuel rampant forum-shopping. Predictably, left-leaning jurisdictions like Massachusetts, Maryland, and Washington state produced most of the nationwide injunctions during the Trump presidency — just as Texas courts served that role under Obama and Biden. Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kagan have both warned about this manipulation. Members of Congress, legal scholars, the American Bar Association, and even the Judicial Conference of the United States have proposed random judge assignments for cases that could result in nationwide injunctions.

Such reforms might reduce forum-shopping, but they do not fix the underlying constitutional defects.

If the court agrees with the Department of Justice and narrows the injunctions to the actual parties in the case, it must still define who counts as a party. Will that include only the named plaintiffs? Or will it extend to entire state populations listed as plaintiffs — or worse, activist groups claiming to represent all their members?

If the court accepts either of the latter definitions, it effectively reauthorizes nationwide injunctions under a different name. That outcome seems unlikely. The court will likely stop short of endorsing such a sweeping expansion of lower-court power and instead point to the existing class-action mechanism already embedded in federal rules.

Whatever the court decides, the consequences will ripple through the hundreds of lawsuits filed against the president’s executive actions. At stake is nothing less than the legitimacy of the last election — and whether unelected district judges can override the policies chosen by the American people. The question before the court is fundamental: Do elections matter, or do lower-court judges run the country?

FDA to ban fluoride prescription products for kids, citing evidence it can lower child IQs



The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is taking action to remove ingestible fluoride prescription drugs for children off the market.

In a press release, the FDA said products that are swallowed offer significant risk to infants and toddlers, unlike toothpaste with fluoride or fluoride rinses.

The FDA also said the ingestion of fluoride products comes with risks like problems with the early development of the gut microbiome in childhood, thyroid disorders, weight gain, and decreased IQ. The federal agency provided links to several studies that point to worrying effects in children, especially in regard to their IQ.

A meta-analysis of studies related to fluoride ingestion and child IQ found an inverse association between fluoride measures in urine and drinking water versus children's IQ.

RELATED: The abortion pill crisis Big Pharma doesn’t want you to see

Florida Surgeon General Dr. Joseph Ladapo. Joe Burbank/Orlando Sentinel/Tribune News Service via Getty Images

An inverse association is defined as a relationship where an increase in one variable leads to a decrease in another variable. Simply put, the more fluoride that was in urine samples and drinking water, the lower the measured child IQ was.

The meta-analysis looked at 74 studies from across the world and found that 64 (86%) reported inverse associations between fluoride exposure and measured children's IQ.

'The best way to prevent cavities in children is by avoiding excessive sugar intake and good dental hygiene.'

Michael Connett, an attorney who has sued the EPA over the fluoridation of drinking water, told Blaze News he was happy to see the idea finally come to fruition.

"I think it is an excellent decision, and long overdue," Connett said.

Connett has been at odds with the federal government since at least 2016 when he filed a petition against the FDA on behalf of the Fluoride Action Network. The petition specifically targeted "unapproved prescription drugs" and claimed there was a large body of scientific and medical evidence that demonstrated fluoride supplements were neither safe nor effective.

FDA Commissioner Marty Makary, who was confirmed by the Senate in March, said he was instructing the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research to evaluate the evidence regarding the risks of systemic fluoride exposure. With a goal date of October 31 to complete a safety review, the Department of Health and Human Services said it would develop a set of best practices for dental hygiene for children at the same time.

"The best way to prevent cavities in children is by avoiding excessive sugar intake and good dental hygiene, not by altering a child’s microbiome. For the same reason that fluoride may kill bacteria on teeth, it may also kill intestinal bacteria important for a child’s health," Makary said.

RELATED: 100 days of MAHA: What has Robert F. Kennedy Jr. done so far to make America healthy again?

The move comes as Utah became the first state to ban fluoride in its water in March.

Just last week, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis and his surgeon general, Joseph A. Ladapo, announced they were looking to become the second state to do so.

Ladapo said that proponents of fluoride in the water supply reminded him of the "Peanuts" character Linus, the little boy who carried around a blanket for emotional security.

"You know? Hold your blanket. But, unfortunately, you know, he is a kid. But what we have instead — we have professionals. There are doctors, dentists, [and] public health leaders who are holding on to fluoridation like that blanket," Ladapo said during a press conference.

HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. also said the recent decision "directly safeguards the health and development of our children."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

The abortion pill crisis Big Pharma doesn’t want you to see



A bombshell new study has found that women are suffering serious harm from chemical abortions at a rate 22 times higher than what the U.S. Food and Drug Administration or abortion pill manufacturers are reporting to patients.

The federal government must step in now to protect women. It can no longer shirk its responsibility by “leaving it up to the states.”

If a drug is this dangerous, Big Pharma should not be allowed to hide its risks from women.

The study from the Ethics and Public Policy Center, which analyzed insurance claims of 330 million U.S. patients and over 850,000 cases of mifepristone abortions since 2017, is the largest and most comprehensive study ever conducted on the effects of America’s most common chemical abortion drug.

The numbers don’t lie

While the FDA and abortion drug manufacturers tout serious side effects in only 0.5% of cases, actual insurance claims from patients reveal the number is much higher: Nearly one in nine women experience severe or life-threatening events within 45 days of taking mifepristone, including sepsis, hemorrhaging, blood transfusion, infection, and surgeries tied directly to the abortion drug.

Nearly two-thirds of abortions in the United States are now chemical, according to the Planned Parenthood-founded Guttmacher Institute, suggesting that hundreds of thousands of women over the past 10 years have suffered serious complications. That is neither “rare” nor “safe” by any definition.

By contrast, according to the EPPC, the federal government’s claims of the drug’s “safety” rely on small, outdated trials — some conducted over 40 years ago — on a combined total of only 31,000 mostly healthy women in doctor-controlled environments.

In real-world environments, however, the abortion drug has proven significantly more dangerous.

The EPPC study found 10.93% of women suffered significant harm from taking the drug. What other FDA-approved drug would remain on the market with such a high rate of serious adverse events?

No state is safe

In light of this data, the federal government can no longer justify the lifting of oversight protocols for the abortion drug. Under Presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden, critical safety measures — such as in-person supervision by a doctor and adverse event reporting — were eliminated. These federal safeguards must be restored, and the drug’s safety and FDA approval must be re-evaluated.

This is not a mere “states issue.” Abortion drugs are often shipped across state lines without a doctor’s involvement. Pro-abortion states like California should not be allowed to pump this dangerous drug into Texas or other states that have enacted reasonable protections for women and their babies.

The leaders we send to Washington, D.C., cannot hide behind federalism on this issue under the guise of “leaving it up to the states.” If just one aggressively pro-abortion state is allowed to ship abortion pills nationwide, women across all 50 states remain at risk — even if the other 49 state legislatures vote to protect them.

Women deserve the truth

Regardless of opinions on abortion, all Americans should agree on this: Women have a right to accurate information about the drugs they take. If a drug is this dangerous, Big Pharma should not be allowed to hide its risks from women. And the FDA cannot turn a blind eye, becoming complicit in a cover-up.

We must demand that the FDA take action. I’ve joined with dozens of pro-family leaders nationwide in writing a letter to President Donald Trump urging him to act. The letter reads, in part:

All the original safety protocols on mifepristone must be restored, and the FDA must investigate mifepristone, reconsidering its approval altogether. The lives of women and unborn children and the rights of states depend on it.

Furthermore, here in Iowa — home of the first-in-the-nation presidential caucus — we are committed to making safeguarding women from the dangers of mifepristone an issue for any candidate who seeks to follow President Trump in the White House. We urge voters to ask the same of any of their candidates: If you seek federal office, will you insist on seeing the safeguarding of women as a federal issue?

Exclusive: See The ‘Airtight’ Methodology Showing 11% Of Pill Abortions Cause Maternal Injury

Media smeared the findings as 'junk science,' but tens of thousands of data exclusions show researchers were careful not to overstate risk.

It Took Me Only 30 Seconds To Order Deadly Abortion Pills In A State Where They’re Illegal

Like an Amazon for abortion pills, Plan C proudly boasts it can help users obtain 'pills by mail in every state.'