Login
The U.S. government has taken a major step toward rebuilding the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) — the federal panel that helps shape vaccine recommendations.
In a Federal Register notice posted Monday for public inspection, officials announced the “re-establishment” of ACIP after admitting that an earlier attempt to renew the committee’s charter did not comply with updated federal advisory committee rules.
The notice says an April 6 renewal notice is being “withdrawn” because of “an administrative error” involving updated public notification requirements under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, which was revised in late 2025.
“As a result, the charter lapsed, and the committee must be re-established,” the notice states.
The timing is significant.
ACIP normally meets over the summer to review updated influenza vaccines, COVID-19 boosters, RSV products and other vaccines ahead of the autumn respiratory virus season.
Without a functioning ACIP, vaccine recommendations could face delays or legal uncertainty — creating problems for manufacturers, insurers, pharmacies, hospitals and state immunization programs.
Committee was paralysed by court ruling that blocked members from meeting
The move follows months of legal and political turmoil surrounding the committee.
Earlier this year, U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy issued an injunction blocking many of the recent ACIP appointments and votes after concerns were raised about whether the committee had been properly constituted under federal advisory committee law.
The ruling effectively paralysed ACIP and cast doubt on the legitimacy of its membership structure.
In response, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention published a revised ACIP charter on April 6 — one of the most significant rewrites of the committee’s mission in years.
The new charter expanded the committee’s role beyond its traditional focus on vaccine schedules and implementation.
For the first time, ACIP was explicitly directed to examine gaps in vaccine safety research, adverse effects following vaccination, cumulative exposure to vaccines and vaccine components and the re-analysis of vaccine safety and efficacy as new information emerges.
The charter also broadened the types of expertise eligible for membership to include toxicology, paediatric neurodevelopment, data science and “recovery from serious vaccine injuries.”
Several organisations were also added as official liaison groups, including the Independent Medical Alliance, Physicians for Informed Consent and the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons.
Supporters saw the changes as a long-overdue response to concerns that vaccine policy discussions had become too narrow and dismissive of safety issues.
Critics argued the overhaul risked embedding vaccine scepticism inside a federal advisory body that heavily influences U.S. immunization policy.
The administration has since appealed Murphy’s ruling, but the legal fight is unlikely to be resolved before ACIP would normally begin reviewing updated flu and COVID-19 vaccines for the coming season.
That explains the urgency behind the new Federal Register notice.
ACIP members ‘shall be selected by the HHS Secretary’
The government now appears to be attempting a full legal reset — rebuilding ACIP under the recently revised Federal Advisory Committee Act rules while seeming to preserve many of the broader reforms introduced in April.
Importantly, the new notice repeatedly emphasises the need for “fairly balanced membership,” “balanced expertise” and broad outreach to identify nominees for the reconstituted committee.
It also states that ACIP members — including the chair and vice chair — “shall be selected by the HHS [U.S. Department of Health and Human Services] Secretary.”
The notice does not automatically restore the members previously blocked by Judge Murphy, but it also does not prevent some of them from being reappointed to a newly constituted committee.
In effect, the charter lapse now gives the administration a clean slate to rebuild ACIP on a new legal foundation while reducing the risk of future court challenges.
Originally published on Maryanne Demasi’s MD Reports Substack page.
