The CDC is recommending 2026-27 COVID vaccination for all adults and allowing vaccination of healthy children through shared clinical decision-making even when use falls outside FDA-approved indications, triggering criticism from prominent MAHA figures who say the policy conflicts with the Trump administration’s earlier move toward risk-based vaccination.

By yourNEWS Media Newsroom

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has issued new COVID-19 vaccination guidance extending beyond the populations specifically approved by the Food and Drug Administration, prompting sharp criticism from prominent figures in the Make America Healthy Again movement who say the policy reverses the Trump administration’s earlier emphasis on limiting routine COVID vaccination to people at greater risk.

The dispute centers on a significant difference between the FDA’s current product approvals and the CDC’s recommendations for the 2026-27 respiratory illness season.

The FDA has approved the updated COVID vaccines for people age 65 and older and for younger people with at least one underlying condition placing them at higher risk of severe COVID-19. Depending on the vaccine, the younger approved age range begins at 6 months, 5 years or 12 years.

The CDC, however, updated its clinical guidance Sept. 23 to recommend a 2026-27 COVID vaccine for every adult age 18 and older. It also recommends vaccination for all children ages 6 months through 17 years who are moderately or severely immunocompromised and makes vaccination available to other children in that age group through shared clinical decision-making between families and healthcare professionals.

CDC explicitly acknowledges that its recommendation extends beyond FDA labeling. Its guidance states that vaccination of people ages 6 months through 64 years who do not have an underlying high-risk condition represents off-label use.

The distinction is important. The CDC is not issuing a blanket instruction that every healthy child must be vaccinated. For children without moderate or severe immunocompromise, the agency calls for an individualized discussion between a parent or guardian and a healthcare professional. CDC also states that the vaccination risk-benefit balance is most favorable for people at increased risk for severe COVID-19 and least favorable for those who are not at increased risk.

For adults, however, CDC recommends the 2026-27 vaccine for everyone age 18 and older, meaning healthy adults younger than 65 fall under a federal recommendation even though their use is outside the FDA-approved indication if they lack a qualifying high-risk condition.

That divergence has become the focus of a growing dispute inside the coalition supporting Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

A detailed report by Just the News described the updated policy as an expansion of COVID vaccination beyond FDA-approved populations and reported that neither CDC nor HHS answered questions from the publication seeking an explanation for the difference.

CDC said the guidance reflects recommendations contained in the July 2025 immunization schedule and cited “legal uncertainties and inquiries” in explaining why those recommendations remain in effect for the 2026-27 season.

The agency’s current documents identify Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA products as well as the protein-based Novavax vaccine among the available COVID vaccines, meaning the federal recommendation is not limited exclusively to mRNA technology.

Critics of the mRNA products have separately emphasized that the vaccines do not produce sterilizing immunity that completely prevents infection and transmission, a distinction discussed in scientific literature examining mucosal immunity and COVID vaccination.

Questions about the updated formulations have also focused on the evidence FDA required for approval. Previous reporting examining the new vaccines raised concerns that the latest formulations were not supported by new randomized, placebo-controlled human efficacy trials directly testing each updated formula before approval.

Those concerns became more politically significant after Heidi Overton, President Trump’s nominee to lead the FDA, affirmed during her confirmation hearing that the agency considers “all” approved vaccines on the U.S. market “safe and effective.”

Her remarks were also circulated during the broader debate over the administration’s vaccine policy.

The COVID controversy is developing alongside another dispute between portions of the Trump coalition and the FDA over mifepristone.

Hours before Overton’s confirmation hearing Thursday, Students for Life of America delivered a formal “notice of intent to sue”, alleging that FDA failed to satisfy the Endangered Species Act when it approved mifepristone in 2000 because the agency did not consult other federal agencies about potential effects on wildlife when the drug or its metabolites enter wastewater.

Students for Life previously advanced the same environmental argument during litigation involving mifepristone.

Republican state attorneys general have separately urged the Environmental Protection Agency to consider mifepristone in its contaminant-review process, citing increased at-home use of the drug.

Anti-abortion groups have also criticized the FDA for not reinstating an in-person dispensing requirement removed during the Biden administration and objected to the Trump administration’s position in litigation over whether states have legal standing to challenge changes in FDA’s mifepristone rules, an issue that has deepened disagreements with anti-abortion activists.

That dispute was highlighted again as the administration faced criticism.

The immediate backlash to CDC’s vaccine guidance, however, is coming from figures who helped shape the MAHA movement’s pandemic-era critique of federal health agencies.

The revised recommendations appeared two days after some longtime MAHA activists warned Trump and Kennedy of political consequences over what they described as a “bait and switch” in which attention shifted from their demands concerning mRNA vaccines toward food and nutrition policy.

Medical scientist and journalist Maryanne Demasi called the CDC action a major reversal.

“For an administration that promised to challenge the medical establishment, it is a staggering surrender,” Demasi wrote.

She said the new recommendations “almost mirror” guidance issued by the American Academy of Pediatrics, an organization Kennedy had previously criticized for what he called “corporate-friendly” recommendations.

Demasi argued that the CDC’s shared clinical decision-making language does not provide families with enough quantitative information about expected benefits for children at low risk of severe COVID-19.

“The agency does not quantify what benefit a healthy baby can realistically expect from vaccination or clearly explain the limits of that protection,” she said.

CDC’s own current guidance does acknowledge that the benefit-risk balance varies substantially by risk group, stating that it is most favorable for people at increased risk of severe disease and least favorable for those who are not.

Robert Malone, who has become one of the most prominent critics of mRNA COVID vaccination and previously served as vice chairman of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, reacted even more sharply.

“I am mad as hell” about the recommendations, Malone wrote in an essay titled “Criminal mRNA Malfeasance by the CDC.”

Malone said ACIP’s discussion and vote last year contemplated “individual medical decision-making within the population for whom FDA had approved the vaccine.”

He contends that CDC officials subsequently converted that approach into “shared clinical decision-making” extending beyond the FDA-approved populations, resulting in what he called “an off-label use in the very population FDA declined to approve.”

“If career officials transformed a public ACIP vote into something the committee did not vote for, while preserving a commercially valuable market for the manufacturers, the public deserves to know who made that decision and who was sitting on the other side of the table,” Malone said.

His argument and the broader dispute were circulated among critics of the updated guidance.

CDC’s official 2025 policy did, however, use the terms “individual-based decision-making” and “shared clinical decision-making” together. The agency announced in October 2025 that its schedules had adopted individual-based decision-making for COVID-19 vaccination following ACIP recommendations. That history is part of the disagreement over whether the September 2026 guidance represents a bureaucratic reinterpretation or continuation of the existing schedule.

ACIP member and Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor Retsef Levi has also challenged the current recommendations, calling them “[i]ncredibly unethical.”

Levi cited an FDA review concerning pediatric deaths reported after COVID vaccination and research showing that the known risk of vaccine-associated myocarditis is concentrated particularly among adolescent and young adult males.

An internal FDA communication released previously said agency reviewers had identified at least 10 pediatric deaths they classified as having possible, probable or likely causal relationships to COVID vaccination. The classifications do not mean that every reported death was proven with certainty to have been caused by vaccination.

Research has consistently found myocarditis following mRNA vaccination to be uncommon overall but disproportionately concentrated in younger males, with one analysis finding the highest rates among males ages 16 to 24.

Levi questioned how many federal health officials “and the physicians pushing these recommendations actually use these product[s].”

His prior research also contributed to debate over the relationship between COVID vaccination and heart inflammation in younger populations.

The CDC has estimated that approximately 18% of adults and 10% of children were up to date on COVID vaccination during the 2025-26 season.

Former FDA regulatory review officer Jessica Adams raised a separate objection, questioning what she described as the agency’s departure from “equipoise”, or genuine scientific uncertainty, while recommending vaccination for healthy people and, in her view, “releasing manufacturers from prospective studies FDA had said were needed to address remaining questions.”

Former FDA Commissioner Marty Makary had previously outlined a framework calling for “randomized, placebo-controlled” trials to support vaccination recommendations in groups for whom the benefit-risk balance was less clear, including healthy adults ages 50 through 64.

Former FDA Commissioner Robert Califf subsequently described those proposed evidentiary standards as “quite reasonable, and even advisable”.

Adams said the administration should explain any departure from the previously announced framework.

“The framework and rationale for generating this evidence were rolled out publicly and extensively,” she wrote. “If significant pieces of that framework are subsequently rolled back, shouldn’t the rollback receive a commensurate public explanation?”

Vaccine injury attorney Aaron Siri similarly criticized the guidance on informed-consent grounds.

“The CDC’s lack of respect for informed consent and individual rights will continue to erode what little trust remains in this agency and will ultimately be its undoing,” Siri wrote.

He characterized the practical message as “just inject” for adults and higher-risk children while leaving parents of healthy children to decide with healthcare providers.

The controversy arrives as Kennedy and Vice President JD Vance prepare to participate in the MAHA Summit in Washington, where administration officials and private-sector representatives are discussing health policy, food, technology and other elements of the movement’s agenda.

Some longtime MAHA activists have already criticized the summit over its corporate sponsorship structure.

Bloomberg reported that sponsorship packages reached as high as $300,000 and could include a speaking opportunity, “meaningful input” into panel topics and participants, and a “private dinner” with Kennedy and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Administrator Mehmet Oz.

Summit organizer Tony Lyons said it was “reasonable” to question the sponsorship arrangements while arguing that corporate influence in Congress deserves similar examination.

His MAHA political organization has spent about $800,000 backing candidates it considers aligned with the movement, with much of that spending aimed at defeating Louisiana Sen. Bill Cassidy in the Republican primary, while maintaining less than $300,000 in available cash, according to Politico.

The same reporting detailed tensions between grassroots activists and the institutional organizations attempting to build a lasting MAHA political operation.

HHS said administration officials participating in the gathering were not involved in planning or sponsorship decisions by Lyons’ nonprofit MAHA Center and were unaware of its corporate sponsorship arrangements, according to the Financial Times.

The department dismissed criticism from vaccine skeptics, including physician Mary Talley Bowden, as “[i]rrelevant outside attacks.”

That response generated additional criticism from activists already questioning the administration’s direction.

The dispute presents the Trump administration with a policy tension rather than a simple return to the universal vaccination recommendations used earlier in the pandemic.

FDA has narrowed its approved indications to older Americans and younger people at elevated risk. CDC nevertheless recommends vaccination for all adults and permits it for healthy children through individualized decision-making, while openly identifying use outside the FDA-approved populations as off-label.

That difference is now the central complaint from Malone, Demasi, Levi, Siri and other MAHA-aligned critics, who argue that federal health officials are maintaining broad access and recommendations without adequately explaining why the CDC’s guidance extends beyond the populations for which FDA specifically approved the 2026-27 products.

Just the News has framed the controversy, together with the continuing mifepristone dispute, as a potential political problem for Republicans approaching the November midterms. Whether either issue changes voter participation cannot yet be established from the available evidence.

What is established is that federal policy now contains two distinct standards: FDA labeling that targets older and higher-risk populations and CDC guidance that reaches further, including off-label vaccination of healthy adults and, through shared clinical decision-making, healthy children.

Separate the mifepristone discussionRemove the repeated closing summary
Original article