What the CDC Vaccine Changes Actually Mean for Parents

Will mandates change? Will school rules change? Here’s the honest answer.

---

The number one question I’ve been asked since the CDC announced changes to the childhood vaccine schedule is simple:

Will mandates change?
Will school vaccine rules change?

The short answer is no—at least not in the short term.

Despite how big this announcement feels, most of the vaccines required for school attendance in states like California and New York City are still recommended by the CDC, which means school requirements in those states remain largely unchanged. For most families, nothing practical changes tomorrow.

That disconnect—between a major policy shift and everyday reality—is part of why this moment feels so confusing.

---

What actually changed—and what didn’t

The CDC reduced the number of vaccines recommended universally for all children and shifted several into categories of high-risk use or shared clinical decision-making. That’s a meaningful philosophical shift.

But the core vaccines—the ones most states use to justify school mandates—remain recommended. So for now, your child will still be required to receive the same vaccines to attend school in most mandate-heavy states.

Where things get murkier is with vaccines like hepatitis B, which are no longer broadly recommended for all children. That raises a real question:
Will states eventually remove those vaccines from school requirements?

The honest answer: it’s unclear.

States can—and often do—set rules independent of the CDC. Some may adjust requirements. Others may not. There is no automatic mechanism that forces states to update school mandates when federal guidance changes.

---

What could change—and why it will take time

There are currently multiple legal cases underway related to religious freedom and medical autonomy. If those cases are ultimately successful, religious exemptions could return nationwide.

But even if that happens, expect:

• Appeals

• Counter-lawsuits

• Years of legal delays

Realistically, any major legal victory will be dragged through the courts, potentially for three years or more, especially if the goal is to delay implementation until a different administration or HHS leadership is in place.

If Robert F. Kennedy Jr. remains at HHS long enough—say, another 4 years—that may be sufficient time for changes to become lasting. But it’s just as possible that progress could be reversed just as quickly.

That uncertainty is frustrating—but it’s also reality.

---

What has changed, and why it matters

Even if mandates haven’t shifted yet, something significant has happened:

The vaccine conversation has been forced into the open.

That never happened before.

For decades, the dominant message was: vaccines are always good, questions are dangerous. That mindset is gone—and it’s not coming back. There is now a growing population of parents asking thoughtful, uncomfortable questions, and you can’t put that back in the box.

This shift will:

• Force more research

• Demand clearer risk–benefit data

• Challenge assumptions that were never rigorously tested

That’s the upside.

---

The part that still frustrates me

Despite how monumental this schedule change feels, we still don’t have the science we actually need.

Changing the schedule is not the same as answering the core questions parents are asking.

For each vaccine—and for vaccines in combination—we still lack:

• Long-term risk data

• Vaccine vs. unvaccinated studies

• Clear data on chronic disease outcomes

And yet parents are now being told to engage in shared clinical decision-making.

Here’s the problem:
Shared decision-making only works if you’re given actual risk information.

Every child is technically “at risk” for hepatitis A, hepatitis B, flu, rotavirus. So where is the line between high risk and low risk? That line is subjective unless we have real data.

If a child has a one-in-a-million risk of hepatitis B when the mother is negative, the obvious next question is:
What is the risk of the vaccine itself?

That’s how real shared decision-making works.

Mother has hepatitis B? Risk of disease goes up—conversation changes.
Mother does not? Let’s talk about absolute risk, not fear.

All medical decisions should have always been shared clinical decision-making. The problem is that parents were never given the tools to do it.

---

So where does that leave us?

For now:

• Mandates haven’t meaningfully changed

• School requirements remain mostly the same

• Lawsuits are coming

• Appeals are inevitable

• The science still lags behind the policy

But the conversation has changed permanently.

That alone makes this moment different.

2026 is already turbulent—and as I said at the end of last year, this is just the beginning. Those who are shocked by changes to hepatitis B may be in for a much bigger surprise.

A lot more is coming.