Trump Health Officials Suppress COVID-19 Vaccine Data, Undermine Public Trust

In November, Vinay Prasad, then-director of the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, made an unsubstantiated claim in an internal email. He asserted that at least 10 children had died after receiving COVID-19 vaccinations, stating they died because of the vaccines. Prasad provided no evidence to support this claim, and none has been presented since. He left the FDA at the end of April.

Prasad’s departure has not halted efforts by other Trump administration health officials to undermine public confidence in vaccines that have already undergone rigorous review and approval. Among the most active is Jay Bhattacharya, who simultaneously serves as head of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and acting head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

In April, Bhattacharya delayed—and ultimately blocked—the publication of a CDC study in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR). The study assessed the effectiveness of the 2025–2026 COVID-19 vaccines against emergency care visits and hospitalizations. Researchers found that the vaccines were 50% effective in preventing COVID-19–associated emergency department and urgent care encounters and 55% effective in preventing hospitalizations among adults over 18, compared to those who did not receive the updated vaccine.

In an op-ed for The Washington Post, Bhattacharya defended his decision to suppress the report, citing a “scientific disagreement” over the study’s methodology. His primary objection centered on the use of a “test-negative design”, a widely accepted method for evaluating respiratory virus vaccine effectiveness.

A test-negative study compares vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals among those who seek medical care for respiratory illnesses. By analyzing test results, researchers can determine whether vaccination reduces the likelihood of testing positive for COVID-19. This methodology is used globally, including in the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, and across Europe.

The suppressed CDC study acknowledged limitations noted by Bhattacharya but still concluded that the vaccines provided significant protection. It also emphasized that effectiveness should be interpreted as the “added benefit” of the 2025–2026 vaccines in a population with high levels of prior infection or vaccination.

Bhattacharya has also claimed that MMWR articles are flawed because they are not “peer reviewed” by outsiders. However, peer-reviewed studies on COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness have historically produced estimates similar to those published in the MMWR.

Trump administration officials are not only suppressing data on vaccine effectiveness. The New York Times reported that the FDA has blocked the publication in peer-reviewed journals of several new studies evaluating the safety of COVID-19 and shingles vaccines, all of which were supported by the agency.