DHHS Cancels $500 Million in Funding for mRNA Vaccine Development

Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. announced on Aug. 5, 2025 that DHHS is canceling $500 million in vaccine development projects, specifically those using mRNA technology. The decision affects 22 projects, including contracts with Emory University and Tiba Biotech. Proposals from Pfizer, Sanofi Pasteur, CSL Seqirus, Gritstone, and others will no longer be considered. According to the DHHS, contracts already in their final stage will be allowed to continue “to preserve prior taxpayer investment.”¹

In a video posted on “X,” Secretary Kennedy referred to COVID-19 and Influenza vaccines and said, “After reviewing the science and consulting top experts at NIH and FDA, the DHHS has determined that mRNA technology poses more risk than benefit for these respiratory viruses.” The announcement comes months after the department revoked a $700 million contract with Moderna to develop an mrNA bird flu vaccine.^{1 2}

Looking ahead, the DHHS stated that future vaccine development contracts through the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), an agency within DHHS,  will prioritize whole-virus vaccines and other emerging vaccination platforms. “To replace the troubled mRNA programs, we’re prioritizing the development of safer, broader vaccine strategies, like whole-virus vaccines and novel platforms that don’t collapse when viruses mutate,” Secretary Kennedy said.¹

Critics of the policy change, including Rick Bright, who led BARDA from 2016 to 2020, called the decision to cut funding “dangerous” and a “huge strategic misstep.” “This decision signals a dangerous complacency,” he said. “Disinvesting from mRNA strips us of one of the fastest tools we have to contain the next pandemic, natural or deliberate. Pulling back from proven medical countermeasure platforms at a time of escalating global bio-risks deeply compromises national security.”¹

Bright and other proponents of mRNA technology emphasize mRNA vaccine development speed and adaptability, which they argue are important when responding to future pandemics. However, multiple studies and real-world outcomes call into question the mRNA COVID shots’ ability to prevent infection or transmission, while concerns persist over serious adverse events and long-term safety. The U.S Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which regulates vaccines for safety, recently required updated warnings on Pfizer/BioNTech’s Comirnaty and Moderna’s Spikevax COVID shots to note increased risks of myocarditis and pericarditis (heart inflammation), particularly in adolescent boys and young men, citing 2024 study findings and new surveillance data.^{1 3}

The surge of breakthrough infections during the vaccine rollout and the height of the pandemic between 2020 and 2022 further highlighted concerns about effectiveness of the COVID shot after the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) continued to publish conflicting information about the ability of the vaccine to prevent infection and transmission. In May 2021, the CDC narrowed its reporting about breakthrough COVID cases to only reporting those resulting in hospitalization or death, a shift critics argue made it harder to assess the negative health impacts of vaccination compared to infection.⁴

Growing Public Distrust of mRNA Technology

Public skepticism toward mRNA technology stems from concerns about its safety. A 2024 commentary in Nature Medicine noted that even in countries with very high vaccination rates, such as France – where more than 90 percent of adults received COVID shots, most of them mRNA—half of those vaccinated still reported lingering doubts about safety. Fears about side effects, the novelty of the mRNA platform, and the speed of its rollout highlight that compliance is not synonymous with trust.⁵

While proponents hail mRNA shots as a scientific breakthrough, questions remain about long-term effects, durability of protection, and documented risks like myocarditis in younger populations. These doubts are compounded by stalled COVID shot injury claims filed with the government, often described as being trapped in a “black hole” of bureaucracy, leaving families without compensation. The Nature Medicine authors warn that dismissing such concerns as “anti-science” is counterproductive, as it only deepens distrust and fuels the perception that legitimate questions about vaccine safety are being brushed aside.^{3 5}

The first large-scale deployment of mRNA COVID shots brought unexpected and underreported side effects (including experts suggesting foreign DNA contamination). There have been a significant amount of unresolved COVID shot injury claims, limited legal recourse, and skewed efficacy data that have resulted in the public viewing future mRNA vaccine development projects with skepticism.^{5 6}

Kennedy Charts a New Course on Vaccine Science and Policymaking

“Let me be absolutely clear: HHS supports safe, effective vaccines for every American who wants them,” said Secretary Kennedy, pointing out that a “universal vaccine” that “mimics natural immunity”—and is believed to be effective against coronaviruses as well as influenza—is the administration’s current focus.⁷

Since taking office, Secretary Kennedy has announced plans to restructure both HHS and the federal Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP); dismissed all 17 members of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) and replaced them with members who do not have conflicts of interest; canceled or halted funding to mRNA vaccine development projects; suspended U.S. funding to Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance; reinstated a federal vaccine safety task force; and enacted sweeping vaccine policy shifts, including removing thimerosal (a mercury-containing preservative) from influenza vaccines and halting recommendations for COVID shots to be given to children and pregnant women.⁸

If you would like to receive an e-mail notice of the most recent articles published in The Vaccine Reaction each week, click here.