California Attorney General Rob Bonta and Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes have initiated a multistate lawsuit against the Trump Administration, challenging significant alterations to the childhood immunization schedule. The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, contends that these changes threaten public health and strain state resources.
The complaint specifically targets a January 5, 2026 “Decision Memo” issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). This memo removed seven critical vaccines from their universally recommended status. The affected vaccines include those for rotavirus, meningococcal disease, hepatitis A, hepatitis B, influenza, COVID-19, and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV). The lawsuit also addresses the unlawful replacement of members of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), the federal panel responsible for shaping U.S. vaccine policy.
Bonta emphasized the gravity of the situation, stating, “The Trump Administration’s attacks on science are irresponsible and dangerous.” He highlighted the risks posed by diminishing public confidence in vaccines, predicting that lower vaccination rates could lead to increased disease outbreaks. This, in turn, would result in higher costs for states, including additional Medicaid spending and the need to combat misinformation.
The coalition behind the lawsuit comprises 14 attorneys general, along with the Governor of Pennsylvania. They are seeking a court ruling to declare the new vaccine schedule and ACIP appointments unlawful. Governor Gavin Newsom of California voiced his concerns, asserting that the changes “ignore decades of medical evidence” and could result in the resurgence of diseases previously controlled in the U.S.
Research indicates that between 1994 and 2023, routine childhood vaccinations in the United States prevented approximately 508 million cases of illness and 1.1 million deaths, yielding an estimated $2.7 trillion in societal savings. This success is largely attributed to the scientific guidance provided by the ACIP, which has shaped the vaccination framework that parents and healthcare professionals have relied upon for years.
Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., now serving as the Secretary of Health and Human Services, has been a prominent figure in the anti-vaccine movement. Critics argue that his appointment has undermined trust in vaccines. During his confirmation, he assured that he would not alter the ACIP, which is mandated to remain impartial and scientifically qualified.
In a controversial move, Kennedy dismissed all existing ACIP members and appointed new ones, many of whom lack the necessary expertise. Following this, the newly constituted ACIP voted to reverse nearly three decades of CDC policy recommending the universal administration of the hepatitis B vaccine at birth. This vaccine is known to be highly effective in preventing perinatal infections when given promptly after birth.
The CDC’s recent actions came under scrutiny after then-Acting CDC Director Jim O’Neill signed the January 5 decision memo, which demoted seven vaccines without any new scientific evidence or proper recommendations from a legitimate ACIP. The memo compared the U.S. vaccination policy to those of other countries, notably Denmark, while failing to consider significant differences in healthcare systems and population dynamics.
In response to what they describe as a lack of science-based leadership from the federal government, California’s Governor Newsom announced the formation of the West Coast Health Alliance. This initiative aims to provide accurate public health communications and maintain a collective stance on vaccination recommendations.
Joining Bonta and Mayes in this legal action are the attorneys general from Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin, as well as the Governor of Pennsylvania. The details of the lawsuit will be made available publicly once finalized.
As the legal battle unfolds, the implications for public health and vaccination policy remain significant, reflecting broader tensions between scientific guidance and political influence in healthcare decisions.
