Federal health officials announced major changes to the childhood immunization schedule, removing several long-standing vaccines from universal recommendation. Public health experts warn the move could increase disease burden including deaths, strain clinical systems, and undermine trust in evidence-based prevention.

What changed in the vaccine schedule:  

• The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) removed routine recommendations for vaccines protecting against influenza, meningococcal disease, hepatitis A, hepatitis B, rotavirus, respiratory syncytial virus, and COVID-19, shifting them to “shared clinical decision-making” between providers and families. Shared decision-making is when parents and doctors work together to choose the vaccination plan that best fits the child.
• The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) stated the change followed an internal scientific review and comparison with other high-income countries, though experts note most peer nations retain broader population-based vaccination strategies.
• While federal and private insurance will continue to cover these vaccines, public health officials caution that removing default recommendations historically leads to lower uptake, particularly among populations with limited access to care.

Public health and workforce implications:

• Vaccines no longer universally recommended have prevented nearly 2 million hospitalizations and more than 90,000 deaths over the past three decades, and experts warn reduced coverage could reverse decades of progress in disease prevention.
• Shifting responsibility to individual families increases the burden on clinicians and parents to interpret complex risk-benefit data, potentially exacerbating health inequities and increasing preventable childhood illness.
• Legal and policy analysts note the changes may open the door to litigation challenging vaccine liability protections, creating uncertainty for manufacturers and threatening long-term vaccine supply and innovation critical to population health preparedness.
• ASPPH signed onto a joint organizational letter on Friday urging congressional oversight of the changes and calling for the protection of vaccine access, coverage, and science-based decision-making.

A federal appeals court ruled that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) cannot move forward with sweeping cuts to research Facilities and Administrative (F&A) costs, preserving billions in funding critical to academic and public health research. The decision reinforces longstanding congressional protections for the research infrastructure that supports scientific discovery and population health.

What the court decided:

• The US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit unanimously upheld a lower court injunction blocking the NIH from imposing a 15 percent cap on F&A cost reimbursements across all grants.
• The court found the policy unlawful, concluding it violated congressional appropriations language and existing Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) regulations governing negotiated reimbursement rates.
• Judges emphasized that Congress deliberately prohibited the NIH from replacing institution-specific negotiated rates with a uniform cap, citing repeated congressional rejection of similar proposals.

Why it matters for academic public health:

• F&A costs support essential research infrastructure, including laboratories, utilities, compliance systems, and administrative staff that enable federally funded public health research to function.
• Last year, ASPPH joined the lawsuit alongside the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) and other higher education and health organizations to protect the stability of the academic public health research enterprise and prevent disruptions that would undermine prevention, preparedness, and innovation.
• While further appeals remain possible, the ruling safeguards critical investments in public health research capacity that drive advances in disease prevention, health equity, and national health security.

The House made significant progress on fiscal year (FY) 2026 appropriations while also voting to extend enhanced Affordable Care Act (ACA) premium subsidies, underscoring the intersection of federal funding decisions and health policy. Together, the actions highlighted ongoing uncertainty for health coverage, public health programs, and research funding ahead of the January 30 shutdown deadline.

What happened:

• The House passed a three-bill appropriations “minibus” funding the Departments  of Energy, Commerce, Interior, and Justice, as well as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and major federal science agencies, sending the package to the Senate weeks before the funding deadline.
• House lawmakers also passed legislation extending enhanced ACA premium tax credits for three years by a 230–196 vote, with 17 Republicans joining Democrats after a discharge petition forced the measure to the floor.
• Despite House passage, Senate leaders signaled the ACA bill faced long odds without significant changes, while appropriators continued negotiations on the remaining funding measures, including spending packages for the Departments of Health and Human Services (HHS), Labor, Education, and Defense.

Why it matters for public health:

• Appropriations decisions shape funding for public health research, environmental protection, emergency preparedness, and safety-net programs, with delays or stopgaps creating uncertainty for institutions and communities.
• The expiration of enhanced ACA subsidies increased premiums for millions of enrollees, raising concerns about coverage losses that disproportionately affect lower- and middle-income households.

The Senate confirmed journalist Sara Carter as director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), placing her at the center of federal efforts to address substance use, overdose, and illicit drug trafficking. Addiction remains a major public health challenge, and federal drug policy decisions play a critical role in shaping prevention, treatment, and recovery efforts that affect communities nationwide.

What to know:

• Carter was confirmed by a 52–48 vote in the Senate and will now oversee federal coordination on drug trafficking, substance use prevention, treatment, and recovery as President Donald Trump’s top drug policy adviser.
• During her confirmation process, Carter emphasized aggressive action against drug cartels while also acknowledging the need to reduce domestic demand through prevention, treatment, and recovery support.

Why it matters for public health and training:

• Substance use and overdose remain a leading public health crisis, requiring evidence-based approaches that integrate epidemiology, health services research, and community-level prevention alongside supply-side enforcement.
• ASPPH continues to support this work through its collaboration with the ONDCP via the Applied Practice Experience program, which places public health students in applied, data-driven projects focused on substance use, overdose prevention, and drug-related health outcomes.

Last week, the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) released the 2025–2030 Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGA), retaining most existing nutrition recommendations while introducing a new visual framework. The update renewed debate over dietary fats, dairy, and the role of science in federal nutrition policy.

 What changed:

• The new DGA featured an upside-down food pyramid emphasizing vegetables, fruits, proteins, dairy, and healthy fats, while placing whole grains at the base – helping reinforce the importance of reducing intake of ultra-processed foods.
• The guidelines maintained the recommendation to limit saturated fat to no more than 10 percent of daily calories, despite earlier indications of a policy shift.
• Federal officials highlighted full-fat dairy as a nutrient-rich option, drawing criticism from nutrition experts concerned about calorie intake and cardiovascular health.

Why it matters for public health:

• The DGA guides federal nutrition programs, public health messaging, and institutional food standards nationwide.
• Public health experts warned that promoting full-fat dairy and meat could undermine efforts to prevent chronic disease and address diet-related health disparities.

While we encourage your sharing of our Policy & Advocacy newsletter by forwarding it, those interested in receiving it can also sign up via this form.