Lead
WASHINGTON, Sept 10, 2025 — A Reuters/Ipsos poll finds only 24% of U.S. adults believe recent vaccine-policy shifts under President Donald Trump’s administration are grounded in scientific evidence. The nationwide survey of 1,084 adults was conducted over five days through Sept. 9 and carries a margin of error of ±3 percentage points. The administration has signaled reduced COVID-19 vaccine recommendations for young, healthy people and pregnant women, reversing a federal vaccination push begun in the final months of Trump’s 2017–2021 term. The poll’s results come as federal agencies undergo rapid personnel and advisory-board changes.
Key takeaways
- 24% of respondents said recent federal vaccine recommendations were based on science and facts; 48% said they were not; the remainder were unsure or declined to answer.
- Belief in scientifically based policy breaks sharply by party: 48% of Republicans said the recommendations were based on science, compared with 5% of Democrats.
- The Reuters/Ipsos survey sampled 1,084 U.S. adults from Sept. 5–9, 2025, with a margin of error of ±3 points overall and about ±6 points for partisan subgroups.
- Federal moves include the FDA narrowing COVID-19 vaccine approval to adults 65+ and younger people with health risks, announced in August 2025.
- Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the administration’s top public-health official, dismissed the CDC director and all 17 members of the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) earlier in 2025; a reconstituted panel is set to meet Sept. 18.
- Public concern about future vaccine access is elevated: 48% worried children might not receive needed vaccines; 42% worried about their own future access.
- Partisan and state-level responses are diverging: Florida officials pledged to remove school vaccine mandates while several Democratic-led states said they will issue state-level recommendations that differ from federal guidance.
Background
The debate follows a rapid reordering of federal vaccine policy and advisory structures. Earlier this year, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. took a senior public-health role in the administration and moved to replace long-standing CDC leadership and ACIP members, disrupting the decades-old advisory process used to set vaccine guidance. In June 2025 ACIP’s 17 expert members were dismissed, and the CDC director, Susan Monarez, was removed last month. Those personnel shifts have framed how Americans perceive the credibility of federal recommendations.
At the same time the Food and Drug Administration narrowed its authorization for COVID-19 vaccines in August 2025 to people aged 65 and older and younger persons with defined health risks, a marked change from prior, broader approvals. That narrowing came after years of a nationwide vaccination campaign that began under the Trump administration’s final months in office and continued through the following administrations. State governments have reacted differently: some Republican-led states are signaling rollbacks of mandates, while Democratic-led states are preparing independent guidance to maintain broader coverage.
Main event
The Reuters/Ipsos poll, fielded Sept. 5–9, found that only one-quarter of respondents view the new federal vaccine recommendations as science-based. Partisan splits drive much of the variation: nearly half of Republican respondents said they trusted the scientific basis of the new guidance, while Democrats overwhelmingly did not. Independents and other groups were split or uncertain, contributing to the substantial share of respondents who declined to take a position.
Policy moves at the federal level have been swift. The FDA’s August decision to restrict COVID-19 vaccine authorization to older adults and higher-risk groups signaled a narrower federal role in recommending shots for the broader adult population. Simultaneously, the administration’s public-health chief has overhauled the CDC advisory process; a new ACIP is scheduled to convene on Sept. 18 and could vote on updated recommendations for several routine vaccines, including hepatitis B, MMRV (measles-mumps-rubella-varicella), and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV).
The poll also captured worries about future access: 48% of respondents expressed concern that children might not receive the vaccines they need in the future. Concern is especially concentrated among Democrats—about four in five Democrats said they were worried—whereas only about one in five Republicans expressed that same worry. Roughly 42% of all respondents said they were concerned about their own future ability to get vaccines.
Analysis & implications
Trust in vaccine policy is a core determinant of vaccine uptake; the poll’s finding that only 24% view recent guidance as scientific suggests a likely erosion in public confidence. That erosion could translate into lower vaccination rates for non-COVID vaccines if state and local programs align with the narrower federal posture, particularly in jurisdictions that choose to follow federal instructions closely. Public-health officials warn that reduced coverage could increase susceptibility to outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases.
The partisan split in trust reflects broader polarization over public-health institutions. Republicans’ greater acceptance of the administration’s changes may encourage state-level policy shifts in GOP-led jurisdictions, while Democratic-led states are already signaling independent action to preserve broader vaccine access. That divergence could produce a patchwork of rules and recommendations across states, complicating national disease-control efforts and messaging.
Economically, a fragmented vaccination landscape could raise costs for states and health systems if outbreaks recur and require containment measures. Internationally, changes in U.S. vaccine policy and public trust may influence global partners and funding decisions; many low- and middle-income countries monitor U.S. guidance when setting their own immunization priorities. In the near term, the Sept. 18 ACIP meeting will be a key inflection point that could either stabilize or further unsettle public confidence depending on transparency, evidence presented, and the nature of any new recommendations.
Comparison & data
| Metric | Value |
|---|---|
| Respondents who say recommendations are based on science | 24% |
| Respondents who say recommendations are not based on science | 48% |
| Democrats who say recommendations are science-based | 5% |
| Republicans who say recommendations are science-based | 48% |
| Respondents worried children won’t get needed vaccines | 48% |
| Survey sample and margin of error | 1,084 adults; ±3 points overall (≈±6 for partisan subgroups) |
The table summarizes the core poll figures reported by Reuters/Ipsos. Because subgroup margins of error are approximately ±6 points, differences within narrow ranges should be interpreted cautiously. The partisan gap (5% vs. 48%) is large enough to be robust against sampling variability, while population-wide measures with smaller margins carry greater precision.
Reactions & quotes
Officials and the public offered contrasting framings of the changes. Federal and state actors have emphasized either deference to new federal guidance or a commitment to preserve broader vaccine access—positions that map closely onto partisan control at the state level.
“Only one in four Americans believe recent recommendations were based on science and facts.”
Reuters/Ipsos poll
The poll finding above has been cited widely by public-health commentators to illustrate waning public confidence. Analysts say the perception gap will shape how states implement or resist federal guidance in coming weeks.
“Four out of five Democrats said they worried about future vaccine access for children.”
Reuters/Ipsos poll
This statistic has been highlighted by advocacy groups and Democratic officials as evidence of public concern; state-level responses in Democratic-led jurisdictions have emphasized retaining broader immunization programs to protect children.
“Officials in Republican-controlled Florida pledged to drop public school vaccination mandates.”
State officials (reported)
Florida’s stated intention to remove mandates was framed by supporters as returning choice to parents and by critics as a potential public-health risk; the state announcement has prompted other governors to state contrasting approaches.
Unconfirmed
- That the administration will enact a universal rollback of all federal vaccine funding—this remains unconfirmed and is reported as a concern rather than a documented policy.
- Any immediate nationwide reduction in childhood vaccination rates directly caused by the current policy changes—short-term national trends have not been established and require monitoring.
- Specific final votes or new ACIP recommendations at the Sept. 18 meeting—the agenda indicates possible votes, but outcomes and language are not yet confirmed.
Bottom line
The Reuters/Ipsos poll on Sept. 10, 2025, shows low public confidence that the Trump administration’s recent vaccine-policy shifts are evidence-based, with sharp partisan divides. Those perceptions are unfolding alongside substantive federal changes: narrowed FDA authorizations for COVID-19 vaccines, widespread personnel upheaval at CDC and ACIP, and an imminent advisory meeting that could change recommendations for several routine vaccines.
How states respond will determine near-term public-health consequences. If Republican-led states follow narrower federal guidance while Democratic-led states maintain broader recommendations, the U.S. may see a fragmented vaccination landscape that complicates outbreak prevention, surveillance and communication. The Sept. 18 ACIP meeting and subsequent state-level decisions will be critical indicators of whether policy and public trust stabilize or further diverge.