Why Trump turned against ‘gold standard' mRNA vaccines
The vaccines marked a breakthrough in medical technology, drastically reducing the timeline for development of targeted vaccines and even showing promise in cancer research. Trump called mRNA the 'gold standard' when he rolled out the first COVID-19 vaccines.
But now they are under assault by Trump's Health and Human Services (HHS) secretary, longtime anti-vaccine advocate Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and his allies in the 'make America healthy again' movement.
HHS in late May canceled $766 million awarded to Moderna through the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) to develop a potential mRNA vaccine for bird flu. HHS spokesperson Andrew Nixon said of the decision, 'This is not simply about efficacy — it's about safety, integrity, and trust.'
'The reality is that mRNA technology remains under-tested, and we are not going to spend taxpayer dollars repeating the mistakes of the last administration, which concealed legitimate safety concerns from the public,' he added.
Unlike traditional vaccines that contain fragments or weakened versions of a virus, mRNA vaccines send messenger ribonucleic acid into cells to teach the immune system to recognize proteins connected to virus cells.
According to Joseph Varon, president and chief medical officer of the Independent Medical Alliance (IMA), the concerns for mRNA vaccine skeptics are the expedited timeline and conditions in which the COVID-19 vaccine was approved.
'The biggest concern is that this rushed treatment still remains in use, even under an Emergency Use Authorization in some cases. It needs to be sent back through proper studies and vetting,' Varon told The Hill.
'There needs to be an established database of vaccine injuries that can be accurately quantified with full transparency, without politics or big money pressure influencing the data,' he added. 'There's a growing body of peer-reviewed studies that indicate the spike proteins are causing havoc in certain recipients.'
The IMA, previously known as Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance, launched a campaign in support of Kennedy's nomination to be HHS secretary. The group drew controversy when its founders promoted ivermectin as a 'miracle drug' for COVID-19.
Myocarditis, or inflammation of the heart muscle, is of particular concern among mRNA vaccine opponents. An analysis published in 2022 found that myocarditis occurred in about 31.2 cases per 1 million second doses of the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine, or 0.003 percent.
Rates of myocarditis are significantly higher among people with COVID-19 infections than immunizations, however.
The development of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccine was aided by the Trump administration's Operation Warp Speed, something Trump has boasted about at numerous points.
In remarks in December 2020, the same month the first COVID-19 vaccines were deployed, Trump praised Operation Warp Speed's ability to develop a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine at a 'breakneck speed,' adding 'the gold standard vaccine has been done in less than nine months.'
Though research on mRNA and its potential uses has been ongoing for decades, use of the vaccines in humans is relatively new.
The first mRNA vaccine candidate tested in humans was for rabies in 2013, but it wouldn't be until the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 that this technology would achieve commercial viability and widespread use.
To Kennedy, this is too much of a coincidence.
In his book 'The Wuhan Cover-Up: And the Terrifying Bioweapons Arms Race,' published in 2023, Kennedy suggests it was more than just happenstance that allowed for the deployment of Moderna's mRNA technology to coincide with the global pandemic.
He pointed to a meeting attended by Dr. Anthony Fauci and former BARDA Director Rick Bright in which the officials met with virologists months before the COVID-19 pandemic broke out. The fact that attendees discussed the need for innovation in influenza research and vaccines became a point of conspiracy online.
Kennedy noted that Bright called for something 'completely disruptive, that's not beholden to bureaucratic strings and processes,' writing, '[Bright] hinted that only a global crisis — like a pandemic — could induce government and industry to commit the billions of dollars necessary to create a new generation of 'plug-and-play' mRNA vaccines.'
In the conversation Kennedy references, Bright was discussing the challenges of making influenza research 'sexy' for Ph.D. and postdoctoral students, surmising that something 'completely disruptive' would be needed to incite excitement in the field.
Proponents of the mRNA technology point to its deployment in the COVID-19 pandemic and its role in reducing transmission as evidence of safety and efficacy.
'In the U.S., you know, we have a lot of real-world experience now with huge numbers of doses given. We have been following for significant or serious adverse events for a long time, and the rate of those serious adverse events is on par with what we see for other vaccines,' E. John Wherry, director of the Institute for Immunology and Immune Health at the University of Pennsylvania, said of mRNA vaccines.
As Wherry notes, all vaccines have adverse side effects, but their safety compared with the diseases they inoculate against is 'incontrovertible.' And while critics take issue with the speed at which mRNA vaccines are developed, Wherry said this difference is precisely what sets these shots apart from older generations.
'mRNA vaccines have a couple of key benefits or features that really stand out compared to other vaccine platforms. One, they can be generated very, very quickly. So, you can adapt to changes very rapidly. This is much easier with an mRNA vaccine, where the COVID strain or flu strain mutates and changes from year to year,' Wherry said.
'The second is that it's relatively simple. So, we don't have to worry about, you know, impurities in, you know, an egg-grown vaccine or a cell-based grown vaccine synthesizing mRNA. There are very few components that go into it, and it can be synthesized with high purity.'
Such mRNA vaccines are also potentially applicable for numerous conditions or even multiple different strains of the same virus, giving it more flexibility than traditional vaccinations.
'So, there are substantial benefits in flexibility, in speed, in simplicity of manufacturing and that probably also affects the cost of goods at the end of the day, which is perhaps a last advantage,' Wherry added.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Miami Herald
40 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
Did the president drop an f-bomb? Yes, and Democrats are doing it too
Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who started in politics as a young legislative aide and is now the senior Democrat in Florida's congressional delegation, has for years calibrated her statements, carefully choosing her words to communicate exactly the message she intends. Recently, speaking at the Broward Democratic Party's annual fundraising dinner, she used blunt - shocking to some - language to convey the threat she said was emanating from President Donald Trump's policies. "F-," she said. More than once. Wasserman Schulz declared that Democrats would "fight to our last breath, and we'll go to the f-ing mat." There has been a clear coarsening of political language: Words that once were widely seen as off-limits, other than behind closed doors or in small groups, are now more common - an extra tool to convey anger and frustration. At another point in the Broward fundraising dinner, Wasserman Schultz decried what she said Trump and Republicans are doing. She asked the audience of 300, "Are we going to let them do that, Broward County?" "No," people in the audience responded. To which the congresswoman replied with an emphatic "f- no!" "This has been building up in me for a long time. So forgive me," she added. Wasserman Schultz later explained the word wasn't in her prepared remarks but said the gravity of the threat the nation is facing in 2025 warranted an expression that once would have been stunning in a public setting. Trump There's no more prominent public user of the f-word and others once widely seen as off-limits than the president. Most recently, on June 24 he was expressing his displeasure with Iran and Israel. "We basically have two countries that have been fighting so long and so hard that they don't know what the f- they're doing. Do you understand that?" His use of the word in regard to Iran and Israel - speaking on the lawn of the White House - attracted massive attention, but he's no stranger to the public use of four-letter words. "More than any other president, Trump has been known to use coarse language in speeches and other public appearances. But even for him, this on-camera utterance of the f-word was new. American presidents have typically refrained from using it publicly, even when angry or frustrated," NPR reported. Just before last year's election, the New York Times reported that a computer search found he had used curses at least 140 times in public last year, not counting words such as "damn" and "hell" that are much tamer to many people. A review of Trump's speech at the 2024 Conservative Political Action Conference found he used epithets 44 times, the Times reported. Perhaps the most famous previous use of the f-word came from Joe Biden, then the vice president, who told President Barack Obama that his 2010 signing the Affordable Care Act, better known as Obamacare, into law was "a big f-ing deal." One big difference: Biden whispered it to Obama and meant it to be private, but it was picked up on an open mic. Critics at the time suggested it was an example of Biden's tendency toward gaffes; years later some supporters were more positive about what they called the BFD moment. Democrats join After 10 years of Trump dominating and altering the nation's political discourse, Democrats' language is now changing. "In some ways the Democrats have been slower, particularly in the Trump era, to adopt the attention-gaining messaging that Donald Trump has really leaned into," said Joshua Scacco, an association professor of communication at the University of South Florida. "It does seem like the Trump era is catching up to Democrats in terms of how they're responding, in terms of how they're adapting their own messaging." Scacco, who specializes in political communication and media content, is also founder and director of the university's Center for Sustainable Democracy. At a Florida Democratic Party dinner gala, which fell between Wasserman Schultz's and Trump's use of the f-word, U.S. Rep. Jared Moskowitz was delivering remarks to an audience of 800. The Broward-Palm Beach County congressman described what would happen when lawmakers returned to Washington to take up the measure the Republican majority passed on July 3, the legislation named "Big Beautiful Bill" at Trump's behest. "They're going to try to pass the big beautiful bulls- of a bill," Moskowitz said. Wasserman Schultz has regularly used the term "DOGEbags" to describe the people dispatched under the Trump presidency to fan out through federal agencies as part of the so-called Department of Government Efficiency effort formerly led by billionaire Elon Musk to eliminate programs and slash spending. On Monday, Kristi Noem, secretary of the Department of Homeland Security and former Republican governor of South Dakota, said she was looking forward to a visit with Trump the next day to the detention center for illegal immigrants pending deportation that Florida has established in the Everglades. In an official statement attributed to Noem and distributed by the agency, she said the detention center would allow the government to lock up "some of the worst scumbags" in the country. Divergent reactions The responses to use of one of the terms that still can't be printed or aired in most mainstream news outlets often depends on the affiliation of the person who uttered the word. After Trump used the word, his firmness and resolve was heralded by a host on Fox, the favored cable news outlet for Republicans. A "very frustrated" president used "salty language," she said. Minutes later, the same Fox host professed outrage at a Democrat's use of the term. She said she was "repulsed" by the user's "foul mouth." The contradictory reactions were so extreme that it prompted mockery online and a video of excerpts calling out Fox from a host at competitor CNN. On Wednesday, as the U.S. House of Representatives debated the big bill to cut taxes, cut social program spending, provide more money for immigration enforcement and the military, and increase the federal debt, Democrats professed outrage. U.S. Rep. Josh Riley, D-N.Y., ran through a litany of objections, before delivering his summary. "Don't tell me you give a s- about the middle class when all you're doing is s-ting on the middle class," he said on the floor of the U.S. House. That produced a tut-tut from U.S. Rep. Steve Womack, R-Ark., who was presiding over the House at the time. "Avoid vulgar speak. We do have families" present. U.S. Rep. Virginia Fox, R-N.C., chair of the House Rules Committee, echoed the reminder about "the language we should be using in this chamber." The admonishment prompted what was, in effect, a verbal eye roll from U.S. Rep. Jim McGovern of Massachusetts, top Democrat on the Rules Committee. "I hope that when the president comes here next, you'll admonish him for the language he uses." Driving the change Several factors are propelling the increasing use of coarse language by Democrats, Scacco said. It's more than simply imitating Trump, he said. The language in question "has a lot of anger in it, a lot of emotional appeal. Democratic messaging has often seemed bloodless in comparison, lacked feeling," he said. "Anger is a very effective emotion in mobilizing people and getting them to perk up a bit. That's what you see here is the use of emotion in sort of that strategic manner, being angry here, frustration," Scacco said. Scacco is co-author of the book "The Ubiquitous Presidency: Presidential Communication and Digital Democracy in Tumultuous Times." "I think that for their base that they're communicating. Their base wants to see that they are clued in to what's going on. And so swearing and that emotional language I think communicates to the base that their elected officials understand the gravity and the magnitude of what's happening," he said. Part of why it seems jarring is that the Democrats under Biden's presidency and for years under an older generation of party leaders in Congress generally stuck with "that sort of more civil, decorous politics" - before they were swept away by Trump and his political movement. Rick Hoye, chair of the Broward Democratic Party, said the kind of language that's used publicly today by some elected officials is different than what he heard when he first got involved in politics in 2009. Hoye said it is both a symptom of the gravity of how strongly Democrats feel and a response to the yearning by many in the party's base that leaders do something to convey how strongly they feel. "For our folks they're just tired. They're just expressing their frustration, the frustration that is felt on the ground," Hoye said. "Democrats like people that are aggressive and fight back." Hoye said Democratic elected officials are "expressing the frustrations of everyday Democrats." He said voters "probably appreciate the fact that their elected officials are fed up and they're speaking a language that everyone feels," adding that "the plain-spoken language lets constituents know that they're on the ground for them." "Our leaders have realized that if they don't fight like this, the average people will get discouraged and feel that they're not really in tune with their struggles and their sentiments. And the Democratic party doesn't want to risk losing contact with the people that we need to show up." That assessment was reflected in a reaction to one of Wasserman Schultz's strong comments at the Broward Democrats dinner. "Excuse my French," she said, prompting a shout from the audience: "Love it. We speak French." Larry Snowden, president of Club 47, the South Florida-based mega-sized club of Trump supporters, said the president is unique. "He's been using those words for a long time," he said, adding the Democrats seem to be attempting to emulate something that works for Trump. "They're in shambles. Why wouldn't you try to be like your opponent." Michele Merrell, the elected state Republican committeewoman from Broward County, said she doesn't think the language that works for Trump necessarily works for others in politics, and definitely not in her view the Democrats. "No one can out-Trump Trump," she said. "I see Democratic and Republican candidates try to emulate him," she said. 'I see various candidates try to copy his way of communicating, and it doesn't really come across. I don't think there's anyone who can replicate what he does." News coverage Such language was once much more hidden from the public. Two generations ago, one of the more shocking elements in the transcripts of then-President Richard Nixon's tapes was his frequent use of profanity. That's how the phrase "expletive deleted" came into common parlance for a time; it was the phrase inserted in brackets to replace Nixon's frequent use of vulgarities. Even the Richard Nixon Foundation, on its website, acknowledged "RN's unfortunate weakness for expletives." One big difference: Those were words he used in meetings and on the phone, not in widely seen public settings. And the actual words didn't get reported. Today, Scacco said, strong language is a tool that the party out of power - the Democrats - can use to "gain attention in an environment where people are not focused on them." By using earthy language, he said, "you attract the attention of journalists who are doing the story, and also people." How to report such language is tricky for the news media. Traditionally such words haven't been published or aired in mainstream outlets that sought to uphold what once was seen as a standard of decorum. But when they're uttered by major political figures, are all over social media, and when livesteams go out online and on cable television, the calculation about preserving the public's innocence isn't as clear. "Mainstream outlets generally don't include profanity in their news reports," wrote the Poynter Institute for Media Studies, a nonprofit based in St. Petersburg. Poynter found a range of usage decisions about Trump's use of the word. Some news organizations avoided the word in text, but used it in video. Others used the word. Some didn't use it in either video or print. Many used hyphens or asterisks to replace some of the word's letters. The Associated Press Stylebook cautions against using such terms in articles unless there is a compelling reason. The AP used "f" and asterisks in text and bleeped the word on video. In an article published in June before Trump used the word, the New York Times explained its policy that publishing such terms "should be rare. We maintain a steep threshold for vulgar words. There are times, however, when publishing an offensive expression is necessary for a reader's understanding of what is being reported" which may include "reporting vulgarities uttered by powerful public figures and wielded in a public setting." When published, the Times wrote "we typically confine it to a single reference, and avoid using it in headlines, news alerts or social media posts." The complexity of the question was laid out in the headline of a Poynter analysis: "What do you do when the president drops an f-bomb?" _____ Copyright (C) 2025, Tribune Content Agency, LLC. Portions copyrighted by the respective providers.
USA Today
43 minutes ago
- USA Today
PFL exec offers Donald Trump a White House card with Francis Ngannou prior to UFC event
The idea of hosting fights at the White House has the entire MMA world going crazy, and PFL wants in on the action. During a recent speech, president Donald Trump revealed the idea of hosting a UFC event at the executive residence as a part of the country's 250th anniversary. Trump wants to go big and host 25,000 spectators, similar to a typical UFC pay-per-view event on Independence Day in 2026. Even though there were no additional details, Trump's press secretary Karoline Leavitt said the president was "dead serious" about the event. Now, PFL wants to be part of the festivities, creating an all-day MMA extravaganza. PFL chairman and founder Donn Davis tagged Trump in a message on X (formerly Twitter), offering a stacked lineup of seven fights that would take place prior to UFC event. The proposed fight card includes the biggest names in the promotion including Francis Ngannou, Cris Cyborg, Dakota Ditcheva and Usman Nurmagomedov. "MMA at White House great idea @realDonaldTrump for July 4, 2026," Davis wrote. "PFL has WOW fight card for MMA fans to celebrate USA 250 anniversary! @PFLMMA afternoon @ufc evening" The full fight card proposed by Davis includes: While the president may be serious about hosting an MMA event on the White House grounds, there are significant logistical hurdles. The White House is not a sports event venue, and does not have an indoor area large enough to host an event at the scale Trump wants. Therefore, the event would have to take place outdoors, which major promotions typically avoid due to weather. The UFC has always maintained a firm stance against hosting fights outdoors due to conditions that could affect the fighting surface, potentially causing problems for the fighters. However, considering the relationship between Trump and UFC CEO Dana White, the promotion may make an exception to pull off the event. If it goes forward, PFL hopes to be a part of the action too.
USA Today
an hour ago
- USA Today
Trump plans to phase out FEMA. Here's what it could mean if you live in a floodplain
President Donald Trump announced plans June 10 to phase out FEMA, according to a report from Reuters. Here's what we know about FEMA: What does FEMA stand for? FEMA is the Federal Emergency Management Agency in the U.S. Why will President Donald Trump phase out FEMA? Is Trump ending FEMA after 2025 hurricane season? On June 10, Trump said he plans to start "phasing out" FEMA after the hurricane season, according to the Reuters report. The president noted states would receive less federal aid to respond to natural disasters. "We're going to give out less money," Trump said. "We're going to give it out directly. It'll be from thepresident's office. We'll have somebody here, could be Homeland Security." FEMA currently oversees the distribution of financial aid to states following a president's declaration of a disaster. State governors are being encouraged to work together in response to natural disasters, according to Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem. She believes that FEMA "fundamentally needs to go away as itexists." "We're building communication and mutual aid agreements among states … so that they can stand on their own two feet with the federal government coming in catastrophic circumstances with funding," Noem said. When is the 2025 hurricane season in the US? When is Trump phasing out FEMA? The hurricane season officially started in the U.S. on June 1 and runs through Nov. 30. This season is expected to generate as many as 10 hurricanes, according to a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration forecast last month. What is FEMA? FEMA exists to help people "before, during and after disasters," according to The agency's core values can be found at: 'We Are FEMA' or Publication One (Pub 1). How did FEMA start? President Jimmy Carter officially created FEMA in 1979 through an executive order, according to FEMA became part of the Department of Homeland Security on March 1, 2003, and has roots dating back to 1803. What is the maximum FEMA payout in 2025? FEMA may help pay for costs insurance doesn't cover up to a maximum award amount. In 2025, the maximum amounts are $43,600 for "housing assistance" and $43,600 for "other needs," according to FEMA. How Trump's decision to end FEMA could impact you Flooding causes more destruction in the United States than any other form of severe weather. It can happen anywhere, whether you live in a coastal Florida city or in the Midwest. In the past 10 years, damage from flooding has averaged $46 billion per year, according to a report by the Congressional Budget Office, which estimates the cost will increase by as much as a third in 2050 because of climate change. It's unclear exactly how Trump's plan to end FEMA would impact the Midwest. But the decision to give out fewer federal dollars could affect the amount of money struggling homeowners receive and how quickly that money is dispersed after a severe weather event. Others are reading: Map shows where anti-ICE, Trump protests have occurred around the US What's my risk of flooding? How much risk you have for flooding depends on where you live and how often floods occur. To understand your risk, it's recommended you learn whether you live in a floodplain. FEMA flood maps: Find out if you live in a floodplain in Indiana Visit to find out how often floods happen in your area. Use tools, maps and past claims data to understand your flood risk and make informed decisions to stay safe. To see if your home is situated on a floodplain, visit and enter your address at: Reuters reporter Nathan Layne contributed to this article. Chris Sims is a digital content producer for Midwest Connect Gannett. Follow him on Twitter: @ChrisFSims.
