In addition, the ACIP includes ex officio members from Federal agencies involved with vaccine issues, and non-voting liaison representatives from medical and professional societies and organizations.
[11] Before leaving office, in January 2025, President Biden’s health secretary approved the appointment of eight new members to a key committee responsible for shaping U.S. vaccination policy.
[12] This rapid series of appointments within a few months could potentially limit the Trump administration’s ability to influence the panel with its own selections.
[13] The decision to fill four newly created positions and replace four members whose terms end in June was aimed at safeguarding the committee’s scientific integrity.
Unlike President Trump’s nominee for health secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has voiced skepticism about vaccines, the newly appointed members are seen as strong supporters of immunization.
If confirmed as HHS secretary, Kennedy would likely be unable to appoint new members to the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices until 2027, restricting his influence over vaccine policy at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
[14] On February 26, 2015, ACIP voted to deliver a Category A recommendation for administering MenB vaccines to persons older than 10 years who were at higher risk of meningococcal disease.
On June 24, 2015, ACIP heard the arguments for recommending Pfizer and Novartis's serogroup B meningococcal vaccines for everyone in the 16-22 age group.
[15][16][17] In the 2024 case of Braidwood v. Becerra, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit entertained questions about the constitutionality of ACIP recommendations having certain binding legal effects, pursuant to the Presentment Clause of the Constitution of the United States, since members of the body are not appointed by the president to be confirmed by the senate.