CDC’s December Vaccine Advisory Meeting results
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) met Dec. 4–5, 2025 to consider changes to the hepatitis B infant vaccine recommendation, the childhood immunization schedule and vaccine ingredients; the committee delayed at least one key vote after a chaotic, contentious first day [1] [2] [3]. News organizations report the panel recommended abandoning universal newborn hepatitis B vaccination in favor of individualized decision-making for infants of mothers who test negative — a major policy shift that critics say departs from decades of consensus [4] [5].
1. What happened at the December ACIP meeting: a tense, televised forum
The two-day ACIP session was held Dec. 4–5 and included public comment periods and scheduled votes on hepatitis B and broader childhood schedule items; the Federal Register and the CDC posted the meeting dates and draft agenda in advance [6] [2] [7]. Journalists described Thursday’s proceedings as chaotic and unusually confrontational, with bright broadcast lights and a more performative atmosphere than ACIP’s typical technical meetings [3] [8].
2. The hepatitis B discussion: from universal birth dose to individualized decision-making
Multiple outlets report ACIP advisers voted to move away from a universal birth‑dose hepatitis B recommendation, instead endorsing shared decision‑making for infants whose mothers test negative for hepatitis B — a substantial reversal from longstanding policy [4] [5]. The Guardian and CNN frame this as “abandoning” or “limiting” the long-standing universal approach; CNN specifically states the committee “voted today to abandon universal hepatitis B vaccination for newborns” [5] [4].
3. Vote delays, procedural friction, and what was tabled
After intense debate and claims of misinformation in the room, the committee delayed a vote on the hepatitis B schedule until Friday to allow advisers more time to examine proposed language; that motion passed 6–3 according to reporting [5] [3]. NBC News described the Thursday session as “chaotic” and said the panel “once again delayed an expected vote,” reflecting procedural uncertainty [3].
4. Why public‑health experts warned against changing the birth dose
Reporting notes that public‑health authorities and prior ACIP practice have endorsed the birth dose as a safety net because many people with hepatitis B are undiagnosed; FactCheck recalled CDC staff pointing out about half of people with hepatitis B in the U.S. do not know they are infected, which underpinned prior recommendation logic [1]. The Guardian cited long-term declines in pediatric hepatitis B cases after infant immunization and emphasized no new evidence of vaccine harm was presented at the meeting [5].
5. Context: a reconstituted committee and shifting norms
Coverage repeatedly ties the meeting’s tenor and outcomes to the reconstitution of ACIP earlier in 2025 by then‑HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., including the firing or reassignment of prior members and changes to committee processes and external participation — shifts critics say have affected ACIP’s evidence‑based procedures [1] [9] [10]. Outlets like Ars Technica and STAT argue the committee has moved toward speculation and away from routine, data‑driven reviews, a contention supported by reporting that CDC scientists and typical expert liaisons were sidelined from some working-group processes [8] [10].
6. Media framing and competing narratives
Mainstream outlets (CNN, NBC, The Guardian) emphasize public‑health alarm and continuity of vaccine-safety evidence when critical of the committee’s direction [4] [3] [5]. Other coverage (Ars Technica, STAT) highlights procedural breakdowns and suggests ideological influence on ACIP’s deliberations [8] [10]. FactCheck.org notes the committee has “departed from its normal evidence-based procedures” since reconstitution and summarizes the agenda items for this meeting without endorsing outcomes [1].
7. What sources do not (yet) say or resolve
Available sources do not mention finalized CDC director action to accept or reject ACIP’s recommendations, nor do they provide the full text of any final vote language adopted after the December meeting — the CDC’s agendas and draft materials were posted, but final agency decisions or MMWR recommendation language are not provided in these reports [7] [2]. Also not found in current reporting here: a comprehensive evidence packet from CDC scientists presented at the meeting that would show new safety data contradicting prior guidance [8] [1].
8. What to watch next
Watch for the CDC director’s formal response to any ACIP recommendations and for publication of final ACIP minutes, vote language and any MMWR recommendation, which historically translate ACIP votes into federal vaccine policy and insurance coverage implications [7] [11]. Also monitor CDC postings and Federal Register updates for implementation details and whether the agency restores more routine scientific participation in future ACIP working groups [6] [10].
Limitations: this account relies only on the cited news and CDC/Federal Register pieces provided; it does not include documents or internal CDC statements beyond those sources [6] [7] [2].