Dr. Georges Benjamin on vaccine lawsuit, a victory and the bigger fight

Public health groups scored a win in their legal battle to reverse changes in federal vaccine policy, and Dr. Georges Benjamin says he is hoping that’s foreshadowing a lasting victory.

Benjamin, the CEO of the American Public Health Association, says he’s feeling optimistic about the lawsuit filed by public health groups seeking to block vaccine policies implemented under Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. The association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American College of Physicians, and other groups filed a lawsuit last July aiming to undo Kennedy’s big changes in vaccine policy.

U.S. District Court Judge Brian E. Murphy of the District of Massachusetts issued an injunction Monday temporarily blocking the health department’s revisions to the childhood vaccine schedule. The court ruling also blocks Kennedy’s overhaul of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, a federal panel offering guidance on vaccine policy.

“This is the beginning of the return to normality that we've been seeking,” Benjamin says.

The Trump administration has vowed to appeal last week’s ruling in federal court, and has unsuccessfully tried to dismiss the case.

Benjamin argues that the changes in vaccine policy threaten public health and don’t reflect the best medical knowledge. He says the federal government can’t be trusted on vaccine policy, and he urges Americans to talk with their physicians with questions.

In an interview with Chief Healthcare Executive®, Benjamin talked about last week’s victory, the importance of the case, and the spread of vaccine hesitancy. And he shares his hope that the legal fight is leading to a return to evidence-based practices in health policy.

Here are some excerpts from our conversation.

Q: Let's start with the ruling blocking the health secretary's changes in vaccine policy and the membership on the advisory panel. What was your reaction when you learned of the ruling?

A: “Well, we were elated. I mean, we were pretty confident that we were right in our perspectives, but we were glad to see that the judge agreed with us.

“But also, when you read his opinion, he was very, very thoughtful, and it basically said they did not follow the law, that the committee was not constituted properly, using their own rules and procedures, and that he recognized it with the historical perspective to it. And this is one of these places where science and law come together, where he recognized that there was enormous harm that was occurring because of what they did.”

Q: Given the way the judge crafted the ruling, were you surprised it was as explicit as it was?

A: No. Judge Murphy is a very experienced jurist, and I think he took his time. What people don't really realize is the number of status hearings we've had, the number of explanations that we put in place …. The documentation was extraordinary. The fact that we found lots of people who had truly been injured, either financially or their practices, or even the risk of some patients, was clearly explained. The judge, he got it.”

Q: The health department has already said that they are planning to appeal. Are you confident of your success in this action going forward?

A: “As much as you can ever be confident … But this is a preliminary injunction. This basically takes things back to the way they were before, as we argue the merits of the case. And so we hope an appeals court will will agree that Judge Murphy was very clear and follow the law, and that the fact is, even though they may appeal, we hope and believe that the appeals court will see our way forward, realizing that Judge Murphy was very clear that he believes that we would win on the merits as the case continues to proceed.”

Q: Now, there's also the bigger legal challenge that you filed last summer, really, to undo a lot of these changes in policy, and that is still ongoing as well.

A: “Correct. That's part of the merits argument. That's correct. So what this basically did was it said that, again, the committee was constituted in an inappropriate manner, that the committee was not a balanced committee.

“But (Judge Murphy) also went so far as to question the qualifications of the members of the committee, very specifically. He talked about their qualifications, and then he talked about the fact that the administration, even with the committee that they constructed, did not follow the proper rules of the federal advisory committee. So it was illegal. It was improperly constructed, and the science that they came out with the recommendations were not in line with the current science as we understand it today.”

Q: There have been a lot of medical societies that criticized the changes in the childhood vaccine recommendations from the government. What has been the impact of those changes in vaccine guidance, from your perspective?

A: “The changes create a great deal of confusion, not just with the general public. You know, your mother and your father who want to get their kids vaccinated. They're just terribly confused about what's going on, but also providers, people who are practicing clinical medicine.”

“You know, we usually just look at the fact that the federal government has carefully reviewed the science and the evidence, and give us their best advice and recommendations, and then we follow them. But in this case, we're not going to be able to rely on their recommendations, based on what they've done recently.

“But the good news is groups like the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American College of Physicians, the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecologists, who all have evidence-based processes, in line with what we used to do in the past with the federal government, and are having those processes continue. And we can follow their recommendations as clinicians.

“In addition, patients trust their doctors. And so to the extent the professional medical societies are advising their members and other clinicians, even that aren't their members, but who practice those specialties through the journal, through newsletters, etc, the medical community should not be confused.”

Q: You can understand why average Americans might be confused or mixed up a little bit, when they're seeing different recommendations from the government, and from different medical groups. It's got to be confusing for folks that actually are just trying to do their best for their kids.

A: “That's correct. Look, this is not something that we should look down on parents. Parents have the absolute right to try to get the best for their kids, and that means they're going to be Googling what they find.

“But I need to remind parents out there, that your physician, the healthcare provider that is taking care of you, the nurse practitioner, the physician, the physician's assistant working with their physicians and their practices, know you best. And you trust them. And the ACIP was a one-stop shop where all of us got together, looked at the best evidence, harmonized that best evidence as best we could, and then made recommendations to the public. And the public could take that to the bank.

“What Mr. Kennedy and his new group of advisors have done is upended that process, so we can't do that anymore. We cannot trust what they say. And you know, Mr. Kennedy said we shouldn't trust him. And I remind you that he is a lawyer, with no real health background, and he brought together a group of advisors, some of whom might be experts in other areas of medicine and health, economics and other things like that, but they have no skill expertise and knowledge in the vaccine area, to be able to make these kinds of understandings and recommendations.

“So trust your doctor. At this point in time, we cannot trust what's coming out of the federal government for vaccines.”

Q: What are you hearing from public health professionals in terms of public reaction, when they're going into the doctor's office? Are you hearing more vaccine resistance or vaccine hesitancy in light of some of these changes over the last year or so?

A: “We talked to folks in the field that are practicing. Of course, I hear from the public health people more than I hear from the classic practicing physicians in their offices. But we do hear stories from both and by the way, we have some of those that were testified for in writing, in court documents, to document the problems that ediatricians, for example, are having more and more patients coming into their offices, or their family members questioning vaccines.

“Now that's been happening for some time. But what's happened is we have an anti-vaccine community which is well funded, and is choreographing a very aggressive effort to undermine the utilization of vaccines, promote non-therapeutic practices. And they're doing that, at a time in which we have a huge measles outbreak, a pertussis outbreak. We have the risk of a range of other vaccine preventable diseases.

“And it's a problem because we are now seeing injuries and deaths. And I think the most important part of all of that is that it's preventable.”

Q: You mentioned the measles outbreak. We've already had over 1,300 cases in 2026, according to CDC figures, and nearly 2,300 last year. How much of this uptick in cases do you think is tied to vaccine hesitancy, or just vaccine confusion due to changes in federal guidance and not getting that clear emphasis on getting the measles vaccine that we've had in the past?

A: “Yeah, the preponderance of the cases, overwhelmingly, are people who are unvaccinated, under-vaccinated, or whose vaccine status is unknown. So it correlates very clearly to people who haven't gotten a shot, some because of the fact that they are opposed to vaccine, some because they're confused about the safety and efficacy of vaccines, and some because they have gone online to try to make an informed choice, and the information has been so confusing that they've opted out of doing anything, or at least delaying getting vaccination, because they're not real sure right now.”

“And the problem is that when you're giving a patient advice and you're counseling people … you have to speak with some degree of certainty, when you're making these recommendations, best in your skill, experience and knowledge as a clinician, and you try to give your patients the best advice.

“I think the other thing is that there's a great deal of effort to create ulterior motives for physicians caring for their patients in the best way they think it's possible. And so there has been misinformation, and I would argue disinformation, about the motives of physicians to vaccinate their patients, accusing physicians of making money inappropriately on vaccinations, being in league with the pharmaceutical companies. And the truth of the matter is, physicians, as you know, do what's in the best interest of their patients, and aren't motivated by this profit motive that they're accusing physicians of, etc.

“I think the big problem here is that it's a coordinated effort to undermine the safety and efficacy of vaccines, and we really have to aggressively push back. And this is the beginning of that process. This is the beginning of the return to normality that we've been seeking.

“Now, again, preliminary injunction. It stalls it for now. We still need to have the debate on the merits of the case. But we do believe that we're in a great position to return the immunologic process, the vaccination process in our country, back to the high quality, evidence-based practice that we had two years ago.”