HHS Lawyers Object to Expanded Powers for Kennedy’s COVID Vaccine Adviser

A new policy dispute has emerged inside the federal health system after lawyers at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) raised objections to expanded powers granted to Retsef Levi, an adviser to Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on COVID-19 vaccines.

The Expanded Authority

In August, Levi was appointed chair of a CDC immunization work group. Under new rules, he was given authority to:

• Appoint members of the advisory group
• Decide what issues the panel reviews
• Set the group’s priorities on COVID-19 vaccines

Traditionally, these responsibilities rest with the CDC itself, ensuring that advisory boards remain collaborative and scientifically independent.

Why Lawyers Objected

HHS legal counsel warned that Levi’s powers may go too far, potentially violating the Federal Advisory Committee Act, which requires federal agencies—not individual advisers—to control the scope and membership of committees.

The lawyers recommended narrowing his role to avoid overreach, cautioning that the new rules could weaken the credibility of CDC vaccine policy and invite legal challenges.

The Agency’s Response

Despite the concerns, the CDC finalized the rule change, maintaining that Levi’s position remains advisory and that the CDC and HHS still hold ultimate authority over decisions.

Officials insist the arrangement is legally sound, but some within the agency privately worry about the long-term implications for scientific independence.

Wider Implications

• Public Trust in Vaccines: Critics argue that reshaping advisory roles in this way risks eroding confidence in vaccine recommendations.
• Legal Risks: If courts later decide the changes exceed federal authority, any vaccine guidance issued under Levi’s leadership could be challenged or delayed.
• Agency Stability: The dispute comes amid high turnover at the CDC, with senior scientists resigning over concerns about political influence in public health.
• Health Policy Direction: Observers warn that vaccine policy may shift focus away from established priorities, with broader consequences for immunization programs.

What It Means for the Public

• Clarity Matters: Vaccine guidance should remain consistent and evidence-based; any shift in how decisions are made can affect rollout timelines and eligibility.
• Consumer Confidence: The integrity of advisory groups directly influences whether people trust public health recommendations.
• Accountability in Government: Legal debates like this highlight the importance of checks and balances within federal health agencies.