Major medical organizations, which customarily eschew delving into politics, are finding themselves increasingly at odds with the Trump administration as health policy decisions are being advanced without the backing of scientific consensus. 

In the past few months, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), under the direction of Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., has put forward drastic changes to federal guidance on vaccines and this week sounded unsupported warnings about a link between Tylenol and autism.

Medical societies like the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists have publicly broken with the administration’s guidance. 

Both the AAP and AAFP issued COVID-19 vaccine guidance that notably contradicted what the Food and Drug Administration had announced shortly beforehand; it no longer recommends the shots for pregnant women or children without underlying conditions. 

The AAP took issue with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s remade Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), noting some of its new members “have a history of spreading vaccine misinformation.” 

The ACIP last week voted to no longer recommend the combined MMRV vaccine for children under 4 and further voted to change COVID-19 immunization guidance so that administration of the shot is determined by “individual-based decision making.” 

These new recommendations drew scrutiny from organizations like the American Medical Association (AMA). 

AMA board member and liaison Sandra Adamson Fryhofer said the ACIP’s recommendations left parents “confused about how best to protect their kids and unable to choose the combined MMRV vaccine for children under 4 years old.”  

“The AMA is concerned that this change not only reduces parental choice, but also reflects ACIP’s reliance on selective data in forming its guidance,” she added.  

“We call on the Administration to ensure ACIP functions as a trusted, evidence-based body so that families can have confidence in its recommendations when making important vaccination decisions.” 

These groups say the open disagreement with the administration’s policies comes down to protecting science, not partisan politics. 

“I don’t know if we’re diametrically opposed. I think the position is that we’re going to stand on science and we speak up for science and speak up for evidence,” American Medical Association CEO John Whyte told The Hill.

“I think when we feel that statements go beyond the science or recommendations go beyond the science, that we’re going to speak up and talk about the science and talk about what expert advice is,” he added. 

Multiple health groups — like the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, and the Coalition of Autism Scientists — spoke out on Monday when President Trump told pregnant women not to take Tylenol due to concerns it may cause autism in children. 

No causal link has been confirmed between the over-the-counter pain reliever and autism spectrum disorder, and physicians worry the warning will cause unnecessary harm to pregnant women and fetuses. 

“If the administration talks about gold standard evidence. Let’s talk about what defines gold standard evidence. The data that was talked at the press conference, and some events afterwards on news shows, is not gold standard in terms of meta review,” Whyte said. 

The HHS said Trump and Kennedy had “pledged to practice radical transparency” and were “honoring that commitment by following the science and sharing critical public health information as soon as it becomes available, ensuring families are informed and public health is protected.” 

“These actions represent an unprecedented, comprehensive approach to deepen our understanding of the causes of autism. We will continue to follow the science, restore trust, and deliver hope to millions of American families,” the department added. 

Battles over scientific evidence were at the center of the recent firing of the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 

Former CDC Director Susan Monarez told senators she was terminated after telling Kennedy she would not approve ACIP recommendations without seeing scientific evidence to support their votes. Kennedy said she couldn’t be trusted. 

“[Kennedy] did not have any data or science to point to. As a matter of fact, we got into an exchange where I had suggested that I would be open to changing childhood vaccine schedules if the evidence or science were supportive, and he responded that there was no science or evidence associated with a childhood vaccine schedule,” Monarez said. 

According to experts, the way the current administration is going about forming health policy removes a level of trust and reliability that could once be expected. 

“In the past, previous administrations have always followed a logical, thoughtful, rational, usually evidence-based process,” Georges Benjamin, the executive director of the American Public Health Association for more than 20 years, told The Hill. 

“And where they had a chance to make a decision that is political or ideological, even when they followed a process, people may not have been happy with their decision, but people understood it because of the process they went through,” he added. 

“The process we’re doing now is not transparent. It’s not following any of the evidence. It’s contrary to any of the proponents of any scientific thought. And it’s being propped up by, you know, a scientist here or there who is, in my mind, getting caught in the lurch.” 

Benjamin said groups like his still want to be “helpful advisors” to the administration. 

“In order to do that, you have to have a partner. And you have to have a partner that you aren’t afraid is going to attack you,” Benjamin said. “Our federal government has enormous capacity to undermine our ability to do our work and to undermine our … viability as organizations.”