Government Lawyers Object to Expanded Powers for RFK Jr.'s COVID Adviser: Legal Questions Mount Over Vaccine Policy

U.S. government lawyers have raised significant legal concerns about expanded powers granted to a vaccine skeptic appointed by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., creating potential conflicts with federal advisory committee regulations and raising questions about the integrity of vaccine policy decisions.

Legal Concerns Over Advisory Committee Powers

According to exclusive reporting by Reuters, Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) lawyers attempted to block Retsef Levi, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor and vaccine skeptic, from assuming new powers at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) that could potentially restrict access to COVID-19 vaccinations.

The legal dispute centers around Levi's elevation in August to head a work group on COVID immunization within the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). Government lawyers expressed concerns in an August 25 email that the widened scope of Levi's role violated the Federal Advisory Committee Act, which governs how advisory panels operate within the federal government.

The lawyers specifically worried that Levi's mandate would improperly transfer authority from the CDC to the work group chair. Under federal law, the CDC "maintains responsibility to define agendas, scope of topics addressed and membership," not the work group chair, according to the legal correspondence reviewed by Reuters.

Who is Retsef Levi?

Retsef Levi serves as a professor of operations management at MIT's Sloan School of Management. Despite lacking traditional medical or immunology credentials typically associated with vaccine advisory roles, Levi has gained prominence for his research questioning mRNA vaccine safety.

Levi shares Kennedy's controversial views that mRNA vaccines used during the COVID-19 pandemic can cause serious harm and death, advocating for their removal from the market. These positions run counter to extensive scientific studies demonstrating that COVID-19 vaccines significantly reduced deaths and complications, while instances of serious adverse events remained exceedingly rare.

First appointed in June as a member of an external advisory board to the CDC, Levi was subsequently chosen in August to lead the vaccine board's work group on COVID immunizations. His appointment represents part of Kennedy's broader effort to reshape vaccine policy with advisers who share his skeptical views.

Federal Advisory Committee Act Violations

The Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) establishes strict guidelines for how government advisory committees must operate to ensure transparency, accountability, and proper federal oversight. The HHS lawyers' concerns centered on several key violations:

• Agenda Control: The CDC must maintain authority over meeting agendas and topics, not delegate this to individual committee chairs
• Membership Authority: Federal agencies retain responsibility for determining committee membership and qualifications
• Scope Definition: Government officials, not outside advisers, must define the boundaries of committee work

The work group rules described an ambitious set of topics for Levi to explore, including investigating theories often promoted by COVID vaccine skeptics that mRNA shots could contain contaminated DNA or allow the coronavirus's spike protein to linger in vaccinated individuals. Health experts argue such safety questions fall under FDA jurisdiction, not CDC advisory committees.

Despite these legal concerns, HHS officials proceeded without addressing the lawyers' objections. The final rules were posted on August 20 without legal counsel approval, according to email exchanges between lawyers and federal health officials.

RFK Jr.'s Vaccine Advisory Overhaul

The Levi appointment represents just one element of Kennedy's systematic overhaul of vaccine policy infrastructure since taking office. In an unprecedented move, Kennedy dismissed all 17 members of ACIP in June 2025, replacing them with eight new advisers including several vaccine skeptics.

Among Kennedy's controversial appointments:

• Dr. Robert Malone: A biochemist who has promoted COVID-19 vaccine misinformation
• Vicky Pebsworth: A nurse serving on the board of the anti-vaccine National Vaccine Information Center
• Dr. Joseph Hibbeln: A psychiatrist without traditional vaccine expertise

This represents the first complete replacement of ACIP members in the committee's 61-year history. Kennedy defended the action as necessary to "restore public trust" in vaccine science, though medical organizations condemned the move as destabilizing to public health.

Implications for Public Health Policy

The legal challenges surrounding Levi's appointment highlight broader concerns about Kennedy's approach to vaccine policy. These changes could have far-reaching consequences for public health:

Vaccine Recommendations: ACIP recommendations directly influence which vaccines doctors prescribe, which shots schools require, and what immunizations insurance companies cover. Weaker recommendations could lead to decreased vaccination rates.

Scientific Integrity: The appointment of advisers without relevant expertise or with anti-vaccine views raises questions about whether recommendations will be based on scientific evidence or predetermined ideological positions.

Legal Precedent: Failure to follow federal advisory committee regulations could establish problematic precedents for how government agencies interact with outside advisers.

The chaos at CDC has already prompted resignations of three top officials who described threats to the agency's scientific independence. Former CDC Director Susan Monarez, fired after just 29 days, testified before Congress that Kennedy asked her to sign off on vaccine recommendation changes without providing supporting scientific data.

Potential Legal Challenges

Legal experts warn that the failure to address HHS counsel's concerns could expose the government to court challenges that might undermine vaccine recommendations. Richard Hughes, a partner at Epstein Becker Green who represents pharmaceutical companies, emphasized the importance of compliance:

"You want to ensure that you're setting agendas and making decisions in a manner that's compliant with the statute. It subjects you to legal risk if you go against the law."

Hughes is already representing plaintiffs in a lawsuit challenging Kennedy's decision to remove COVID-19 vaccines from the CDC's immunization schedule for children and pregnant women. Additional legal challenges could emerge if advisory committee procedures continue to violate federal regulations.

The potential for successful court challenges increases if plaintiffs can demonstrate that:

• Advisory committee procedures violated FACA requirements
• Recommendations lacked proper scientific foundation
• Committee membership failed to meet expertise requirements
• Public health was endangered by procedural failures

Expert and Medical Community Reactions

The medical and scientific community has responded with alarm to Kennedy's changes to vaccine advisory processes. Dr. Gregory Poland, a vaccine expert who previously served on CDC advisory panels, criticized the disruption of established procedures:

"What they've done is disrupt the process and procedures that have worked well and that have been traditionally used – all in support of predetermined ideologies."

Major medical organizations have expressed concern about the integrity of vaccine recommendations under the new system. The American College of Physicians described ACIP's scientist ouster as destabilizing "a trusted source," while the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists warned the move sends "a chilling message to doctors at the front lines about how scientific evidence is valued."

Public health experts worry that political interference in scientific advisory processes could lead to recommendations not based on evidence, potentially resulting in preventable disease outbreaks. Historical data shows that even small decreases in vaccination rates can lead to resurgences of previously controlled diseases.

The changes have also created uncertainty in the pharmaceutical industry, with some companies already reporting concerns about vaccine development and investment decisions in an environment where advisory recommendations may be based on ideology rather than science.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the Federal Advisory Committee Act?

The Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) is a 1972 law that governs how federal agencies use outside advisory committees. It requires transparency, balanced membership, and proper federal oversight to prevent undue influence from special interests.

Who has the authority to change ACIP membership?

The Health and Human Services Secretary has the authority to appoint and remove ACIP members. However, appointments must follow federal guidelines for expertise and conflicts of interest, and the committee's operations must comply with FACA requirements.

What happens if ACIP recommendations change?

ACIP recommendations influence doctor prescribing practices, school vaccination requirements, and insurance coverage for vaccines. Changes to recommendations could affect vaccine access and public health protection levels.

Can the legal concerns be resolved?

Yes, HHS could address legal concerns by ensuring advisory committee operations comply with FACA requirements, maintaining proper federal oversight, and basing recommendations on scientific evidence rather than predetermined positions.

What oversight exists for vaccine recommendations?

Multiple layers of oversight exist, including congressional oversight, federal ethics requirements, public meeting requirements, and judicial review. Legal challenges can arise if procedures violate federal law or endanger public health.

Conclusion

The legal objections raised by government lawyers regarding Retsef Levi's expanded powers represent more than technical procedural concerns. They highlight fundamental questions about the integrity of vaccine policy decision-making under Kennedy's leadership and the proper balance between political authority and scientific expertise.

As Kennedy continues to reshape vaccine advisory structures, the tension between his reform agenda and established legal frameworks will likely generate additional conflicts. The resolution of these legal questions will have lasting implications for public health policy, scientific advisory processes, and the role of expertise in government decision-making.

The medical community, legal experts, and public health advocates will be closely monitoring upcoming ACIP meetings and any resulting legal challenges. The stakes extend beyond vaccine policy to broader questions about how government agencies should incorporate outside expertise while maintaining scientific integrity and legal compliance.

Stay informed about these critical developments affecting vaccine policy and public health by following official CDC announcements and consulting with healthcare providers about vaccination recommendations.