Which countries changed the timing or number of routine childhood vaccine doses in 2025 and why?

1. The singular, dramatic U.S. pivot: what changed and why

Federal officials dramatically pared back the U.S. “core” or universal childhood immunization recommendations after a December 2025 White House directive asked HHS and CDC to compare U.S. practice with peer, developed nations; the decision memorandum accepted recommendations from an assessment of 20 peer countries and moved the U.S. from recommending immunization for roughly 17–18 diseases to a core set for 11 diseases, while shifting other vaccines to categories emphasizing shared clinical decision-making or targeted risk-based use ^{[1] [2] [4]}.

2. The official justification: international comparison and public trust

HHS and White House documents and statements present the change as a response to two findings: that the U.S. was an “outlier” among wealthy countries in the number of diseases addressed and total doses recommended, and that declining trust in public health suggested a simpler, more internationally consonant schedule could restore confidence and perhaps improve uptake ^{[2] [5] [1]}.

3. Who drove the review and what foreign models were invoked

The review that informed the policy was ordered by the President and relied on an HHS-led assessment of 20 peer nations; officials explicitly compared the U.S. to countries such as Denmark, Japan, Germany and others often cited as recommending fewer universal childhood vaccines, and used those comparisons as the basis for aligning U.S. core recommendations with perceived international best practices ^{[1] [4] [6]}.

4. What the record actually shows about other countries in 2025

Reporting and the government assessment repeatedly cite peer nations as reference points (Denmark, Japan, Germany, Finland, U.K., Canada, Australia and others), but none of the provided sources reports that these countries themselves changed the timing or number of routine childhood vaccine doses in 2025; they are described as the comparator “status quo” against which U.S. recommendations were judged, not as nations that altered their schedules last year ^{[7] [1] [8]}.

5. Scientific and professional pushback to the U.S. move

Leading medical groups, vaccine scientists and public-health experts criticized the U.S. action as unprecedented and potentially harmful, arguing that the step was taken without a transparent, public process and that international comparisons can overlook critical differences in disease risk, health systems and population health needs; WHO and independent experts were cited as saying they had not seen comparable de‑lists elsewhere absent safety crises ^{[7] [6] [8]}.

6. What remains available and the practical implications cited by officials

HHS and CDC stated that vaccines removed from the universal-recommendation category would remain available in the U.S. health system and covered by federal insurance programs for those who choose them, framing the move as a change in recommendation status rather than removal from access — yet public-health groups warn the shift may reduce routine uptake and increase confusion about timing and necessity ^{[5] [9] [10]}.

7. Limitations of the public record and where uncertainty remains

The sources document a U.S.-led policy change that grew from a December 2025 directive and an inter‑agency review, and they list peer countries used for comparison, but the reporting does not present evidence that any other country altered its national childhood schedule in 2025; furthermore, detailed scientific data the U.S. review used to justify specific deletions or timing shifts are not reproduced in the reportage examined here, limiting independent assessment of the clinical rationale ^{[1] [2] [7]}.