The US Preventive Services Task Force, a critical advisory body to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), recently saw the firing of its two vice chairs by HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
This move is part of a larger trend of eliminating, ignoring, and replacing scientific advisory committees. These committees play a vital role in providing independent advice to agency policymakers, improving the quality and credibility of decision-making. They also enable accountability by creating a public record of recommendations, which courts, Congress, and the public have come to rely on to better understand agency choices.
Importance of Expert Advisory Committees
Expert advisory committees matter for two reasons: they provide high-quality, independent advice to improve decision-making, and they create a public record that enables accountability. Agency policymakers need this advice to make informed decisions, especially after staffing cuts to agencies like the EPA, FDA, and CDC.
The FDA approved the Alzheimer’s drug aducanumab in 2021 despite the near-unanimous vote of the advisory committee (which included one of us) against approval, illustrating the role of advisory committees in shaping public accountability. The negative vote anchored the debate that followed, with critics pointing to it as evidence that the FDA had made a mistake.
Advisory committees enable the public to hold agencies accountable for their decisions, forcing policymakers to explain why they think their advisers were wrong. Without these committees, policymakers can more easily evade hard questions about unscientific or politically motivated decisions.
Reforms to Protect Advisory Committees
Congress has the power to change the current situation and protect advisory committees from arbitrary political control. It can enact reforms such as for-cause statutory removal protections, staggered terms, formal expertise and qualification requirements, and enforceable conflict of interest rules.
These reforms would likely survive constitutional scrutiny because advisers do not actually make policy, and their advice is nonbinding. By insulating expert advice from political control, Congress can ensure that evidence, science, and expertise guide public policy.
Read Also: Kulldorff Challenges Journal Gatekeeping in NIH Lecture
The dismissals at the USPSTF follow a Supreme Court decision in 2025 stating that the secretary of HHS can remove members at will, as no statute restricts their removal. However, Congress can, and should, change this by requiring that advisers be chosen more transparently and according to stricter criteria.
A researcher at the Program On Regulation, Therapeutics, And Law (PORTAL) at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School notes that the dismissals at the USPSTF are the latest chapter in a vast project of eliminating, ignoring, and replacing scientific advisory committees. In 2025, the Trump administration terminated 151 advisory committees at scientific government agencies, including 75 in HHS.
The FDA has largely ignored its standing advisory committees, instead hosting pseudo-scientific look-alike meetings called “expert panels.” Panelists were handpicked and invited for a single meeting to share their own data, analysis, and conclusions, unmoored from any semblance of collaborative consensus and, too often, scientific rigor.
The FDA convened a record low number of advisory committees in 2025, instead hosting pseudo-scientific look-alike meetings.
In 2025, Kennedy fired the entire Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, which provides public recommendations on vaccines. The replacements were, to varying degrees, sympathetic to his unscientific views, and a majority lacked substantial expertise in vaccines and immunology.
The task force reviews scientific evidence to provide recommendations on whether private health insurers should be required to cover services like cancer screenings at no cost to patients.
