The Trump administration’s move to cut off funding for new vaccine projects that use the groundbreaking mRNA technology credited with saving millions of lives during Covid 19 will stifle new drug development and hobble the country’s ability to weather future pandemics, health policy professionals warn.
“This is yet another one among many actions that have been taken that are undermining both the present and the potential future of vaccine infrastructure and availability,” said Wendy Parmet, director of Northeastern University School of Law’s Center for Health Policy and Law. “We’re playing with fire.”
On Tuesday, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.—a longtime critic of vaccines—said the government would end funding for nearly $500 million in mRNA vaccine projects, halting 22 investments in mRNA vaccine development. In deciding to no longer fund such projects shepherded by a small HHS agency, Kennedy and the administration face criticism that they are relying on inaccurate information and putting Americans in danger of future health emergencies.
The move cuts against the mission of the HHS’ Center for Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, the agency responsible for pushing out vaccines, treatments, and diagnostics to combat public health threats, observers say. It also marks a major setback for the technology behind mRNA vaccines, the technology widely credited with curbing the global Covid-19 pandemic, and used in both the
HHS earlier this year canceled a $766 million contract with Moderna to develop avian influenza vaccines based on the technology.
The HHS said other mRNA technology efforts aren’t affected by its announcement, including those at the National Institutes of Health. It did not give examples of how NIH is using mRNA.
Traditional vaccines can take years to develop, while mRNA vaccines can be developed in a matter of months.
According to the University of Utah, mRNA vaccines operate by teaching cells how to create a small piece of the virus to spur an immune response. Many traditional vaccines place an inactivated or weakened germ or virus in your body to trigger an immune response.
On a Tuesday post on X about the BARDA cuts, Kennedy said the Covid-19 pandemic showed that mRNA shots “don’t perform well against viruses that infect the upper respiratory tract.”
“mRNA technology poses more risk than benefits” for Covid and flu, Kennedy said.
Others disagreed with those assertions.
“Significant data demonstrate that mRNA vaccines are safe and highly effective at preventing severe disease, hospitalization and death due to COVID-19,” Tina Tan, president of the Infectious Disease Society of America, said in a statement Wednesday. “mRNA technology also shows potential against other respiratory pathogens like influenza and is worthy of further study.”
BARDA’s Role
Kennedy has said the HHS will shift funding toward different vaccine platforms.
Dorit Reiss, a University of California San Francisco law professor specializing in vaccine policy, said that “BARDA still is supposed to develop medical countermeasures, but limiting its platforms to whole virus vaccines limits its options and will make it less effective in its job.”
“Focusing on whole cell vaccines also means it will not be using the most flexible and easily adaptable technologies, which may slow down a response to future emergencies,” Reiss said.
The decision to cut mRNA projects is “in tension with the prevailing science and appears to be based on the Secretary’s anti-vaccine bias rather than any objective justification,” she said.
BARDA functions to respond to a host of medical emergencies, including infectious diseases and pandemic influenza.
The agency’s “most important role is gap filling—supporting research that is important to pandemic preparedness but may not otherwise attract private sector investment,” said Richard Hughes IV, a lawyer at Epstein Becker & Green PC and a former Moderna executive.
BARDA partners with biomedical industry players like drugmakers and universities to fuel vaccine and other medical developments meant to respond to health emergencies. Among the companies affected by the HHS’ action are Moderna and Pfizer, both of which played a critical role in the US’ response to the Covid-19 pandemic.
“You have to consider this in the broader context of statements by HHS officials around the utility, safety and efficacy of mRNA. It’s collectively going to have a market chilling effect on mRNA and that’s unfortunate,” Hughes said. “You’re talking about a technology that has such great potential to save us not just from future pandemics but from cancers.”
‘Critical Incentives’
During the first Trump administration, BARDA “played an instrumental role” in advancing mRNA technology so the US “had viable options for prevention of a then-deadly pandemic” and “creating critical incentives for pharmaceutical manufacturers to move forward with this vaccine development,” said Reshma Ramachandran, assistant professor at Yale School of Medicine.
“Not only did BARDA significantly de-risk the development of the vaccines, but they also guaranteed a market for manufacturers by purchasing millions of doses of vaccines in bulk—sometimes even without a guarantee that the vaccine would be ultimately FDA approved,” Ramachandran said.
During the Covid-19 era, BARDA was critical in efforts to spur vaccine development, including providing $483 million for Moderna.
“This is where agencies like BARDA play a critical role in ensuring that we have technologies to address these future threats as quickly as possible,” Ramachandran said.
An incorrect AI summary previously at the top of this story was removed.
— With assistance from
To contact the reporter on this story:
To contact the editors responsible for this story: