Lawmakers Question Kennedy on Vaccines, Biosecurity, and NIH Cuts



Lawmakers questioned Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on key issues like vaccines, biosecurity, and federal research funds in a week of congressional hearings about the HHS budget for 2026.


Kennedy was the sole witness at a May 20 hearing of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies, and two May 14 hearings—before the Senate Health Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee and the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies.


Kennedy found himself on defense over his positions on vaccines and cuts to National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding. On the subject of China and biosecurity, he urged reshoring of manufacturing, noting Eli Lilly’s efforts in this area.


Vaccines and measles

Many questions on vaccines focused on concerns that Kennedy has not done enough to encourage vaccination in the face of ongoing measles outbreaks.


During the House Appropriations hearing, Kennedy responded to a question from Rep. Mark Pocan (D-WI) about his confidence in measles vaccines, saying he would “probably” choose to vaccinate his children against measles again.


“I don’t think people should be taking medical advice from me,” Kennedy added, saying they should get this advice from NIH Director Dr. Jay Bhattacharya.


At the Senate HELP hearing, Democrats raised alarm over Kennedy’s stance on measles vaccines, arguing his statements eroded public trust and contradicted his confirmation hearing testimony.


Ranking Member Bernie Sanders (I-VT) alleged that Kennedy undermined confidence in vaccines during a major measles outbreak. Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-NH) raised similar concerns. Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) said Kennedy’s hesitance to unequivocally endorse measles vaccines is “really dangerous for the American public and for families.”


A few days later in the Senate Appropriations subcommittee hearing, Kennedy gave a direct endorsement for the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine.


“The best way to prevent the spread of measles is through vaccination. We urge people to get their MMR vaccines,” he said.

But he added that he understood why some are hesitant.


“There are groups in this country that don’t want to get vaccinated, many of them for religious reasons. I spend a lot of time with the Mennonites. The MMR vaccine has millions of fragments of human DNA in it from aborted fetal tissues and that’s a religious objection for them that I have to respect,” Kennedy said.


As experts have noted, there is no human DNA in MMR vaccines. The attenuated viruses in the rubella component of the vaccine are produced using a cell line obtained from the lung tissue of a single fetus in the 1960s. But those regenerated cells are only used to grow the rubella viruses, and the viruses made in this manner do not contain DNA from the human cells.


Vaccines and placebo testing

Other vaccine-related questions focused on Kennedy’s views about using placebos for vaccine testing.


Under a new framework announced May 20, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is expected to require placebo testing for annual COVID boosters in some circumstances. During the hearings, Kennedy promoted the idea of using placebos to test vaccines. Critics of this position note the ethical problem of denying clinical trial participants protection afforded by a vaccine if they receive a placebo.

“The only vaccine that has been tested in a full-blown placebo trial against an inert placebo was the COVID vaccine,” Kennedy told the HELP Committee.


HELP Committee Chair Bill Cassidy, MD (R-LA) corrected this comment.


“The secretary made the statement that no vaccines except for COVID have been evaluated against placebo. For the record that’s not true,” Sen. Cassidy told the hearing. “The rotavirus, measles and HPV vaccines have been, and some vaccines are tested against previous versions, so just for the record, to set that straight.”


In the Senate Appropriations subcommittee hearing the following week, Kennedy was asked by Sen. Brian Schatz (D-HI) if he believed vaccines that are already approved need to be retested using placebo trials.


“I don’t think it’s ethical to go back and retest those vaccines with a placebo,” Kennedy said. “The Cochrane Collaboration in 2016 published a study that showed that the predictive capacity of placebo control trials, which are the gold standard, is actually not any better than good observational trials and retrospective trials. So we can do those kinds of studies without subjecting people to an unethical experiment.”


NSCEB and biosecurity

Kennedy was also asked to address the findings of the recently released report by the Congressional National Security Commission on Emerging Biotechnology (NSCEB).


Created by Congress in the 2022 defense budget, the NSCEB in April released its report warning that China’s strategic spending on biotech R&D increased 400-fold in the last decade as they seek to eclipse U.S. dominance in the field. If the U.S. falls behind, it has serious implications for our national security and health, the report warned.


In the House Appropriations subcommittee, Rep. John Moolenaar (R-MI) mentioned the report and asked whether Kennedy saw overreliance on China for biotech as a threat. Kennedy responded that China is stealing U.S. IP and technology and claimed NIH has enabled this IP theft.


Kennedy said it is important to bring drug production home to the U.S. and noted drug makers are beginning to do that.


“I’ve met repeatedly with Eli Lilly, which is now building nine facilities, nine factories, in this country, including for essential medicines (and) the essential ingredients for those medicines.”


In the Senate HELP hearing later that day, Sen. Jim Banks (R-IN) asked for an update on efforts to reshore drug manufacturing from China to the U.S. Kennedy again mentioned Eli Lilly’s efforts to build production facilities in the U.S. and said movement toward reshoring has been encouraged by President Trump’s threats of tariffs on pharmaceutical companies.


Concerns about NIH funding

There was clear concern about the impact that budget cuts to the NIH would have on biomedical research and the innovation that brings us new drugs.


Lawmakers in all three hearings pushed back on Kennedy’s claims that the NIH is beset by corruption, that NIH cuts are focused on DEI programs rather than research, and that AI will enable the same number of clinical trials to continue despite cutbacks.

In the Senate HELP committee, Chair Cassidy warned that NIH budget reductions would impair capacity for crucial research on neurodegenerative diseases, hinder the development of new scientists, and undermine U.S. competitiveness with China.


Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) detailed a constituent’s delayed stage-four cancer treatment at the NIH Clinical Center due to staff firings and demanded that Kennedy supply information on specific number of staff cuts. Kennedy acknowledged NIH staff cuts would “hurt” but called them necessary.


Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) criticized the NIH’s proposed 15% cap on indirect research costs, calling it arbitrary, harmful to research, and likely to drive scientists abroad. She asked if Secretary Kennedy was evaluating its impact on laboratories. Kennedy said a review was underway.

Voicing a similar sentiment In the House Appropriations Committee, Ranking Member Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) said China and Europe are taking advantage of the firings of nearly 5,000 employees at NIH by recruiting American scientists.


As she opened the Senate Appropriations subcommittee hearing, Subcommittee Chair Shelley Moore Capito (R-WVA) underlined the importance of the NIH. “NIH-funded basic research is also behind many of the 600+ new cancer treatments the FDA has approved over the last 20 years,” and other important breakthroughs, Capito said.


‘I am concerned that our country is falling behind in biomedical research,” she added. “Investing in biomedical research has proven to save lives while exponentially strengthening the U.S. economy.”


Author: Tom Popper is the Managing Editor of Bio.News.

November 4, 2026
CEO Note: A New Political Landscape, A Continued Commitment to Georgia Life Sciences Georgia's 2026 election results mark a historic shift in the state's political landscape, setting the stage for a new administration, new statewide leadership, and a potentially changed balance of power in the General Assembly as we approach the 2027 legislative session. At the national level, Democrats won control of both chambers of Congress , creating a new dynamic for federal policymaking. With the presidency remaining under Republican leadership, the coming years will require bipartisan cooperation to advance legislation. Changes in congressional leadership and committee oversight could significantly affect healthcare, federal research funding, FDA policy, drug pricing, and patient access. The most significant changes for our industry, however, are happening here in Georgia. Keisha Lance Bottoms' victory in the gubernatorial race marks a historic transition in state leadership, ending more than two decades of Republican control of the Governor's Office. She will also become the first Black woman elected governor in U.S. history. Democrats also swept Georgia's statewide executive offices , including lieutenant governor, attorney general, secretary of state, and the commissioners responsible for agriculture, labor, and insurance. These leadership changes create new opportunities for engagement on the policies and investments that shape Georgia's economy. In the General Assembly, Democrats made substantial gains and appear positioned to take control of the Georgia House of Representatives , pending final results in several close races. Republicans retained a narrowed majority in the State Senate. This potentially divided legislative environment will require thoughtful engagement and collaboration across party lines. We can also expect considerable turnover in the General Assembly, with dozens of new legislators beginning their terms in January. Along with a new Governor and incoming administration, this creates an important opportunity to introduce policymakers to Georgia's life sciences industry, its economic contributions, and its potential for future growth. What Does This Mean for Georgia's Life Sciences Industry? Life sciences is an economic development priority that should transcend party lines. Our industry's growth depends on a combination of sound public policy, private investment, research, workforce development, infrastructure, and a business environment that encourages innovation and commercialization. As Georgia establishes its new leadership priorities, several areas will be particularly important: Economic Development and Manufacturing: Positioning Georgia to attract and retain biopharmaceutical, biotechnology, and MedTech companies while advancing the infrastructure and capabilities needed to support scale-up manufacturing. Research and Commercialization: Strengthening connections between Georgia's research institutions, emerging companies, investors, and industry partners to move discoveries from the laboratory into commercial applications. Workforce Development: Expanding investment in technical education, apprenticeships, and industry-aligned training to prepare Georgians for the growing range of life sciences careers. Capital and Investment: Improving access to capital and supporting programs that help Georgia-based companies grow, commercialize technologies, and remain competitive. Healthcare Innovation and Patient Access: Supporting an environment that encourages medical innovation, advances research, and improves patient access to new treatments and technologies. These priorities align directly with Pathways & Partnerships: A Roadmap for Georgia's Life Sciences Sector , our ten-year strategy to position Georgia as a leading scale-up manufacturing hub in the Southeast. Georgia enters this transition with both an opportunity and a clear need to strengthen its competitiveness in life sciences. The recently released BIO/TEConomy report highlights the industry's significant contributions, including more than 42,600 jobs across over 4,200 establishments, while reinforcing the opportunity for Georgia to accelerate growth relative to other states. Our Roadmap provides a foundation for working with policymakers to turn these opportunities into sustained investment, stronger industry partnerships, and high-quality jobs throughout Georgia. GLS's Role Moving Forward For Georgia Life Sciences, this transition reinforces the importance of our role as the industry's statewide voice and convener. We will be intentional about building relationships with the incoming administration, new legislative leadership, returning legislators, and state agencies. We must ensure that policymakers understand not only the healthcare implications of our industry, but also its broader economic impact: high-quality jobs, significant research investment, advanced manufacturing, innovation, and opportunities for communities across Georgia. At the federal level, we will continue working with our national partners and Georgia's congressional delegation to advocate for policies that sustain research and innovation, support a predictable regulatory environment, strengthen American biomanufacturing, and advance patient access. With a new administration and many new legislators, we have an opportunity to establish a stronger understanding of what it takes to build and sustain a competitive life sciences ecosystem. That means bringing industry leaders to the table, communicating our priorities, identifying areas of bipartisan alignment, and advocating for policies that support long-term growth. Our industry's success requires a long-term commitment that extends beyond any election cycle or administration. The political landscape may change, but our commitment to advancing Georgia's life sciences industry remains constant. We look forward to working with leaders on both sides of the aisle to ensure Georgia continues to be a place where life sciences companies can innovate, invest, manufacture, and grow.
October 30, 2026
For Georgians living with serious and rare diseases, how quickly and predictably a new treatment moves through U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) review can make a real difference. That predictability also matters to the researchers and businesses that make up Georgia’s growing life sciences sector. Both depend in large part on the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA), a longstanding bipartisan program that Congress needs to reauthorize by 2027. How PDUFA Works Since 1992, PDUFA has allowed the FDA to collect user fees from biopharmaceutical companies to supplement the agency’s resources for reviewing new medicines. In exchange, the FDA commits to clear, predictable review timelines. The agency’s standards for safety and efficacy remain unchanged. By providing additional resources and establishing clear performance goals, PDUFA helps ensure patients can access new treatments in a more timely and predictable manner. The result of PDUFA have been significant. Before PDUFA, FDA reviews often took more than two years. Today, the median review time is 10 months for standard applications and 8 months for priority applications. In 2025, nearly 70% of new medicines were approved in the U.S. before any other country. What’s at Stake in 2027 Congress reauthorizes PDUFA every five years. The current agreement, PDUFA VII, expires September 30, 2027. Timely reauthorization is critical to maintaining the FDA’s review capacity, preserving regulatory predictability, and ensuring patients continue to benefit from medical innovation. Georgia stakeholders recently came together to talk through what that means here at home. On October 28, Georgia Life Sciences, the MTS Sickle Cell Foundation, and Georgia First hosted “PDUFA: How Medicines Reach People,” a lunch-and-learn at Brookhaven City Centre. Patient advocates, congressional staff, and business and academic leaders heard from Nick Magallanes of Todd Strategy Group, Natalie Crawford of Georgia First, Maria Thacker-Goethe of Georgia Life Sciences, and Mapillar Dahn of the MTS Sickle Cell Foundation. What We Heard At the event, speakers came at PDUFA from different angles, but the common thread was how the program affects Georgians. Mapillar Dahn of the MTS Sickle Cell Foundation stressed that patients need to remain at the center of conversations. As a mother of three daughters with Sickle Cell Disease, Mapillar stressed that she wants the FDA to have what it needs to carry out a thorough review without unnecessary delays. The confidence families place in a treatment depends in part on confidence in that process. Natalie Crawford with Georgia First and Mended Hearts spoke about the need for a fully resourced FDA so that Georgia patients have access to innovative treatments and also for a healthy Georgia economy. Additionally, Maria Thacker-Goethe spoke to what PDUFA reauthorization means for Georgia’s booming life sciences sector. She warned that without PDUFA reauthorization, research across the board will be stifled – ranging from devastating impacts to small startups to significant delays in investments and research. Part of a National Conversation As Congress prepares for the 2027 reauthorization, conversations like these help bring together patients, advocates, and community leaders to highlight the real-world importance of the program. Decisions made in this reauthorization cycle will shape FDA resources and review timelines nationwide. By reauthorizing PDUFA on time, Congress can make sure the FDA can keep reviewing new medicines efficiently and patients in Georgia and across the country can get the treatments they need. 
October 29, 2026
Increasingly high bond rates are having important implications for the U.S. life sciences ecosystem – and underscore the role of mergers and acquisitions (M&A) and other pro-competitive partnerships in advancing innovation. The upshot. Developing a new medicine requires significant and sustained investment over many years. This makes the life sciences industry especially sensitive to changes in the cost and availability of capital. With financial conditions tightening, a predictable environment for life sciences M&A is critical to sustaining investment in the next generation of cutting-edge treatments and cures. Why bond rates matter. It can cost billions and take more than a decade to bring a new treatment or cure to patients. Often, these companies operate without a profit and rely on outside investment (such as venture capital) to finance this high-stakes journey. When relatively low-risk investments like U.S. Treasury bonds offer stronger returns, investors need significantly greater potential returns to justify betting on riskier, long-term investments, such as drug development. The cost to early-stage life sciences investment. For emerging life sciences companies, less available capital can mean fewer resources to advance promising science and fewer new cures reaching patients. Research from NBER estimated that an unexpected one-percentage-point increase in interest rates reduces R&D spending across industries by approximately 1–3% and venture investment by roughly 25% over the following one to three years. M&A as an investment incentive. A healthy M&A environment provides a critical incentive for investors to support high-risk science by offering a potential exit. The prospect of an acquisition allows investors to realize returns from financing early-stage research – and reinvest that capital in the next generation of treatments and cures. M&A helps advance promising innovation. M&A is similarly vital to turning the promising science that attracted investment into approved medicines for patients. Emerging companies contribute specialized scientific knowledge and innovative drug candidates – but often depend on partnerships with larger, more established companies to access the clinical-development expertise, regulatory capabilities and infrastructure needed to bring medicines to patients. The evidence reinforces this complementary relationship. Findings from Cornerstone Research show that drug projects acquired from smaller companies by firms with prior launch experience were three times more likely to launch – and five times more likely to launch as novel drugs – than projects acquired by another small firm. A predictable pathway forward. When higher bond rates raise the bar for investing in innovation, policymakers should avoid adding unnecessary barriers to an already challenging investment environment. A predictable and balanced approach to merger enforcement can help preserve life sciences M&A as a vital pathway for transforming promising scientific discoveries into new medicines for patients. Source: Importance of Life Sciences M&A Amid Rising Interest Rates - Partnership for the U.S. Life Science Ecosystem (PULSE)
MORE POSTS