[VT I WASHINGTON, D.C., December 5, 2025 ] — Rep. Grace Meng (NY-06), Chair of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus (CAPAC), sharply criticized the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) for voting to end the long-standing recommendation that all newborns receive a hepatitis B vaccine dose at birth. She called on the committee to withdraw the decision, warning that it lacks scientific justification and could result in thousands of preventable infections.
“Decades of research have proven that the hepatitis B vaccine is safe and effective for newborns,” Meng said in a statement. “This reckless decision will lead to thousands of preventable infections for a disease that has no cure.”
Meng emphasized the heightened risk to Asian Americans, Native Hawaiians, and Pacific Islanders (AANHPI).
“Asian Americans account for more than half of all hepatitis B infections in the United States while making up only about seven percent of the population. This is one of the nation’s most significant racial health disparities,” she said.
She added that political interference was undermining public health: “This is what happens when vaccine skeptics gain influence over national health policy. They are putting politics over science and making our nation sicker.”
High Hepatitis B Burden in AANHPI Communities
Federal data show that hepatitis B disproportionately affects AANHPI populations:
- 1 in 12 Asian Americans lives with chronic hepatitis B;
- In 2022, the rate of new chronic hepatitis B cases among AANHPI persons was more than 11 times that of non-Hispanic White persons;
- The hepatitis B–related death rate among AANHPI individuals was nearly nine times higher than among White individuals.
Hepatitis B is often called a “silent killer” because many people experience no symptoms for years until severe complications such as cirrhosis or liver cancer appear.
Policy Change and Context
Since 1991, the United States has recommended that all newborns receive a hepatitis B vaccine dose within 24 hours of birth. This universal birth-dose strategy is widely credited with reducing hepatitis B transmission—particularly mother-to-child transmission—and lowering chronic infection rates nationwide.
Under ACIP’s new recommendation:
- Infants born to mothers who are HBsAg-positive or whose status is unknown would still receive the birth dose;
- Infants whose mothers test negative may delay vaccination until two months of age, with the timing decided jointly by parents and clinicians.
The vote occurred after the committee underwent major restructuring in 2025, when HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. dismissed all 17 original ACIP members and appointed new members, including several long-time critics of vaccine policies. This shift has drawn scrutiny for its potential influence on the committee’s direction.
Medical and Public Health Experts Voice Strong Opposition
The decision triggered significant pushback from medical professionals and public health organizations:
- Michael Osterholm, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota, warned the change disregards extensive evidence of the vaccine’s safety and effectiveness and could lead to increased infections.
- Internal dissenting ACIP members, including Cody Meissner, argued that eliminating the universal birth dose lacks new scientific support and risks widening gaps in vaccine coverage.
- The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) reiterated that the birth dose is a proven cornerstone of childhood hepatitis B prevention.
Critics caution that prenatal screening can miss infections, household exposure risks may be underestimated, and delaying vaccination complicates decision-making—factors that could weaken population-level protection.
Broader Implications and Ongoing Debate
If the CDC Director accepts ACIP’s recommendation, the United States would see its most significant change in hepatitis B vaccination policy in more than three decades. The shift would affect hospital practices, parental decision-making, insurance coverage, and long-term public health strategies.
The central debate is not whether the vaccine is safe—decades of research have established that it is—but whether universal newborn vaccination should remain a foundational public-health safeguard.
Supporters of the policy change argue for more individualized, risk-based decisions and greater parental choice. Opponents warn that such an approach increases the likelihood of missed doses and disproportionately harms high-burden communities, including AANHPI populations.
Conclusion
The controversy surrounding ACIP’s decision highlights a broader national question: Should vaccine policy prioritize universal public-health protection or shift toward individualized decision-making?
As lawmakers, clinicians, and public-health leaders continue weighing the evidence and implications, many—including Rep. Meng—are calling for caution, scientific rigor, and sustained protection for communities most at risk.
