World Vaccine Congress Washington Tackles Anti-Vaccine Rhetoric in U.S. Politics – The Fulcrum
The World Vaccine Congress Washington is held at the Walter E. Washington Convention Center, April 23, 2025
WASHINGTON—A vaccine policy expert challenged attendees of the World Vaccine Congress Washington to imagine a deadly disease spreading in various places around the country. We have the tools to stop it, but lawmakers were instead debating whether or not to use them.
In fact, that describes what is currently happening across the United States, according to Rehka Lakshmanan, M.H.A.
“Science is not a democracy,” said Lakshmanan, chief strategy officer of the Immunization Partnership, a non-profit that focuses on education and advocacy for immunizations. 
Rehka Lakshmanan gives her lecture, “Anti-vaccine rhetoric in legislature,” at the World Vaccine Congress Washington, April 23, 2025.(ErinDrumm/Medill New Service).
And yet, since 2017, state legislatures around the country have been treating the science behind vaccinations as if it were debatable.
Legislation in some state capitols and skepticism towards vaccines by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. have contributed to doubts about vaccines in the United States. Kennedy formerly chaired the anti-vaccine non-profit Children’s Health Defense and recently called autism an “epidemic,” claiming environmental factors caused it in a pressconference. But at the World Vaccine Congress Washington in the Walter E. Washington Convention Center, organizers and experts wrestled with the increasing politicization of vaccines.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
Texas, where the Immunization Partnership is based, is the epicenter of the current measles outbreak. According to the Texas Department of Health and Human Services, 627 measles cases have been confirmed in Texas since late January.
Kennedy spoke out in favor of the measles vaccines after meeting with two families in Texas who lost children as a result of the measles outbreak.
“The most effective way to prevent the spread of measles is the MMR vaccine,” Kennedy said in a post on X.
A panel at the World Vaccine Congress, “Are we doing enough with regards to funding safety science to foster trust in vaccines?” discussed political rhetoric surrounding vaccines.
“We need to find some common ground here. And we can try to yell louder, but they have the microphone right now,” said Daniel Salmon, director of the Institute for Vaccine Safety at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. “It shouldn’t be to fund terrible studies that confirm hypotheses that some people believe. It should be really high-quality, rigorous science, and let the findings be what they must.”
Salmon encouraged finding moments for cooperation even when that’s difficult. Other panelists were skeptical of finding common ground because of Secretary Kennedy’s past claims and his recent hiring of David Geier, who has tied vaccines to autism, as a data analyst at the Department of Health and Human Services.
“This is not the time to be trusting,” said Amy Pisani, chief executive officer of Vaccinate Your Family. “They don’t have any respect for institutions of higher learning or researchers that have credible backgrounds.”
While speakers at the conference differed in their opinions on how to approach the current presidential administration, they agreed that vaccine science should continue improving despite the fraught politics.
“Vaccine legislation introduced in state legislatures is the canary in the coal mine in terms of what we can potentially see in terms of a breakdown of policies in our states and across the country,” Lakshmanan said of the future of vaccines in U.S. politics.
Erin Drumm is a reporter for the Medill News Service covering politics. She graduated from the University of Notre Dame in 2024 with a BA in American Studies and is now a graduate student at Northwestern University’s Medill School of Journalism specializing in politics, policy and foreign affairs.
WASHINGTON—A vaccine policy expert challenged attendees of the World Vaccine Congress Washington to imagine a deadly disease spreading in various places around the country. We have the tools to stop it, but lawmakers were instead debating whether or not to use them.
In fact, that describes what is currently happening across the United States, according to Rehka Lakshmanan, M.H.A.
“Science is not a democracy,” said Lakshmanan, chief strategy officer of the Immunization Partnership, a non-profit that focuses on education and advocacy for immunizations. Rehka Lakshmanan gives her lecture, “Anti-vaccine rhetoric in legislature,” at the World Vaccine Congress Washington, April 23, 2025.(ErinDrumm/Medill New Service).
And yet, since 2017, state legislatures around the country have been treating the science behind vaccinations as if it were debatable.
Legislation in some state capitols and skepticism towards vaccines by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. have contributed to doubts about vaccines in the United States. Kennedy formerly chaired the anti-vaccine non-profit Children’s Health Defense and recently called autism an “epidemic,” claiming environmental factors caused it in a pressconference. But at the World Vaccine Congress Washington in the Walter E. Washington Convention Center, organizers and experts wrestled with the increasing politicization of vaccines.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
Texas, where the Immunization Partnership is based, is the epicenter of the current measles outbreak. According to the Texas Department of Health and Human Services, 627 measles cases have been confirmed in Texas since late January.
Kennedy spoke out in favor of the measles vaccines after meeting with two families in Texas who lost children as a result of the measles outbreak.
“The most effective way to prevent the spread of measles is the MMR vaccine,” Kennedy said in a post on X.
A panel at the World Vaccine Congress, “Are we doing enough with regards to funding safety science to foster trust in vaccines?” discussed political rhetoric surrounding vaccines.
“We need to find some common ground here. And we can try to yell louder, but they have the microphone right now,” said Daniel Salmon, director of the Institute for Vaccine Safety at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. “It shouldn’t be to fund terrible studies that confirm hypotheses that some people believe. It should be really high-quality, rigorous science, and let the findings be what they must.”
Salmon encouraged finding moments for cooperation even when that’s difficult. Other panelists were skeptical of finding common ground because of Secretary Kennedy’s past claims and his recent hiring of David Geier, who has tied vaccines to autism, as a data analyst at the Department of Health and Human Services.
“This is not the time to be trusting,” said Amy Pisani, chief executive officer of Vaccinate Your Family. “They don’t have any respect for institutions of higher learning or researchers that have credible backgrounds.”
While speakers at the conference differed in their opinions on how to approach the current presidential administration, they agreed that vaccine science should continue improving despite the fraught politics.
“Vaccine legislation introduced in state legislatures is the canary in the coal mine in terms of what we can potentially see in terms of a breakdown of policies in our states and across the country,” Lakshmanan said of the future of vaccines in U.S. politics.
Erin Drumm is a reporter for the Medill News Service covering politics. She graduated from the University of Notre Dame in 2024 with a BA in American Studies and is now a graduate student at Northwestern University’s Medill School of Journalism specializing in politics, policy and foreign affairs.
Jar full of american coins.
The Fulcrum introduces Congress Bill Spotlight, a weekly report by Jesse Rifkin, focusing on the noteworthy legislation of the thousands introduced in Congress. Rifkin has written about Congress for years, and now he's dissecting the most interesting bills you need to know about but that often don't get the right news coverage.
Trump recently discontinued production of the one-cent coin. What about the five-cent coin too?
What the bill does
A new bill in Congress would suspend production of both the penny and nickel for 10 years. The bill also contains a provision clarifying that all existing pennies and nickels ever produced would continue to remain as legally usable money.
It was introduced on February 12 by Rep. David Schweikert (R-AZ1). The bill does not appear to have an official title.
Context
In fiscal year 2024, each penny cost 3.7 cents to produce, more than triple its face value. So on February 9, President Donald Trump announced that he was suspending the production of the penny for an indefinite period of time. (Again, existing pennies can still be used.)
“For far too long the United States has minted pennies which literally cost us more than 2 cents. This is so wasteful!” Trump posted on Truth Social. “I have instructed my Secretary of the US Treasury to stop producing new pennies. Let's rip the waste out of our great nation's budget, even if it's a penny at a time.”
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
Even some congressional Democrats supported the move. Rep. Schweikert introduced his bill three days later.
However, some worry that suspending only the penny may inadvertently increase government losses on coin production, by deepening reliance on nickels. Nickels cost 13.8 cents each, so the government actually loses far more on each nickel than on each penny: about 8.8 cents versus 2.7 cents.
What supporters say
Supporters argue in part by citing history. The U.S. last discontinued a coin’s production due to low value with the half-penny or “haypenny” in 1857. However, adjusted for inflation, it was worth more than 17 cents today – the financial equivalent of discontinuing the penny, nickel, and dime due to low values.
Supporters now argue that we should discontinue the penny and nickel but keep producing the dime and quarter because those two actually earn money. Each dime currently costs 5.8 cents, while each quarter costs 14.7 cents – both well below their face value.
Treasury Secretary William E. Simon even advocated suspending the penny back in 1976.
Noting “the diminishing utility of the one-cent denomination in commerce,” Simon wrote, “the United States government is rapidly approaching a decision point concerning continuance of the one-cent coin.” He argued for doing so in the 1970s or 1980s: “Elimination of the cent at some later date would be a much more drastic action than elimination now.”
What opponents say
Opponents counter that the bill is self-serving.
Rep. Schweikert represents Arizona, which produces about 70% of U.S. copper. Only the penny’s razor-thin outer coating is made of copper, but the actual coin is 97.5% zinc versus only 2.5% copper. Vice versa, despite literally being named a “nickel,” the five-cent coin is only 25% nickel versus 75% copper.
In other words, switching from pennies to nickels would require considerably more copper production – primarily benefiting Arizona. Little surprise that Arizona politicians have historically ranked among the biggest proponents of ending the penny in years past.
In 2006, then-Rep. Jim Kolbe (R-AZ8) introduced the COIN (Currency Overhaul for an Industrious Nation) Act. In 2017, then-Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) introduced the similarly-named COINS (Currency Optimization, Innovation, and National Savings) Act. Neither received a vote.
Odds of passage
The new bill has not yet attracted any cosponsors, not even any Republicans. While lead sponsor Rep. Schweikert is a Republican, the bill isn’t particularly partisan in substance.
It awaits a potential vote in the House Financial Services Committee, controlled by Republicans. No Senate companion version appears to have been introduced yet.
Back in 2011, Rep. Schweikert also introduced a bill to replace the production of dollar bills with dollar coins within four years. (Currently, dollars are produced as both bills and coins.) The legislation never received a vote.
Jesse Rifkin is a freelance journalist with the Fulcrum. Don’t miss his weekly report, Congress Bill Spotlight, every Friday on the Fulcrum. Rifkin’s writings about politics and Congress have been published in the Washington Post, Politico, Roll Call, Los Angeles Times, CNN Opinion, GovTrack, and USA Today.
SUGGESTIONS:
Congress Bill Spotlight: Trump’s Birthday and Flag Day Holiday Establishment Act
Congress Bill Spotlight: Donald J. Trump $250 Bill Act
Congress Bill Spotlight: Impeaching Judges Who Rule Against Trump
U.S. President Donald Trump talks to reporters on April 23, 2025, in Washington, DC.
Few can deny that whether you love or hate President Donald Trump, the first 100 days of his second term have been marked by bold and controversial actions that will shape American life for years, if not decades, to come. His administration has unleashed a torrent of dramatic moves: a record blitz of executive orders reshaping immigration, trade, and environmental policy; the escalation of trade wars, especially with China, that have rattled global markets; an aggressive effort to slash the size of federal agencies; and policy shifts in international relations, including a realignment on Russia and Ukraine. The stock market’s volatility reflects just how deeply these decisions are impacting the economic climate.
Yet, while the policy fireworks dominate headlines, a less visible but equally profound story is unfolding: the emotional toll Trump's presidency is having on millions of Americans.
For many, particularly those directly affected by the sweeping changes, there is a constant, gnawing sense of fear and uncertainty. Immigrants facing mass deportations, citizens facing the suspension of due process, members of the LGBTQ+ community being threatened with losing hard-fought rights, diversity programs dismantled, and hundreds of thousands of federal workers grappling with layoffs or the threat of them—all are navigating a landscape of heightened anxiety about their futures. The emotional distress among these groups is real, and it is growing.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
But the ripple effects of emotional strain stretch far beyond traditionally marginalized communities.
Farmers—often seen as part of Trump's base—are among those now bearing heavy emotional burdens. The administration’s tariff battles have created market instability, slashed export opportunities, and driven up the cost of supplies. Farmers, many of whom operate on tight margins and seasonal incomes, are facing growing anxiety over the viability of their livelihoods. The unpredictable nature of Trump’s trade policies has left many feeling trapped between loyalty and economic survival, fueling frustration and fear in America’s agricultural heartland.
Veterans, too, are grappling with a deep sense of betrayal. Under the Department of Government Efficiency( DOGE) initiative, sweeping layoffs gutted the Department of Veterans Affairs, eliminating over 80,000 jobs. These cuts have strained the system's ability to provide healthcare, mental health services, and employment for former service members. Veterans who once found purpose in helping their peers are now left jobless, while others are losing critical healthcare resources. This erosion of support has triggered new waves of anxiety, anger, and despair among those who served.
The emotional landscape is also shifting dramatically for parents of children with disabilities. Cuts to Medicaid and other healthcare supports are threatening not just their children’s well-being but their families’ financial stability. As one parent told NBC Washington, "Without Medicaid, I don't know how we would survive." The sense of helplessness and fear that these families are experiencing is profound and growing.
And the list goes on. Women, worried about rollbacks to reproductive rights and workplace protections, report rising levels of fear and activism fatigue. University administrators must navigate an increasingly volatile environment for free speech, affirmative action, and campus safety. Nonprofit leaders, particularly those working on civil rights, environmental justice, and public health, are stretched thin trying to defend decades of hard-won progress against sweeping federal retrenchments.
Meanwhile, Trump’s confrontational leadership style is adding another layer of stress nationwide. Studies cited in Psychology Today in 2020 pointed to a clear trend: the president’s combative, polarizing, and often personal rhetoric heightens emotional distress across the political spectrum. Americans are again reporting increased levels of anxiety, anger, and political exhaustion. Many feel marginalized or unheard in a political climate defined by conflict rather than dialogue. Those on the right have had their fears fueled; those on the left have been cast as targets. The rising emotional distress only deepens Trump’s populist appeal, amplified through escalating “us vs. them” rhetoric and violent vocabulary.
In just 100 days, Trump’s presidency has left a visible mark on government institutions and global markets. But perhaps even more significantly, it has deepened the emotional divide within America, fraying the mental and emotional resilience of millions of its citizens.
If the next 1,360 days of his presidency continue at this pace, the damage to the American psyche may rival the political changes taking place on paper. Healing will not come easily.
David Nevins is co-publisher of The Fulcrum and co-founder and board chairman of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.
Kristina Becvar is co-publisher of The Fulcrum and executive director of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.
U.S. President Donald Trump speaks to the media as he departs the White House on April 25, 2025 in Washington, DC.
The Fulcrum strives to approach news stories with an open mind and skepticism, striving to present our readers with a broad spectrum of viewpoints through diligent research and critical thinking. As best we can, we remove personal bias from our reporting and seek a variety of perspectives in both our news gathering and selection of opinion pieces. However, before our readers can analyze varying viewpoints, they must have the facts.
How has Trump's first 100 days compared to previous presidents, with respect to congressional legislation?
In the first 100 days of his second term (2025), President Donald Trump signed only five bills into law, marking the lowest legislative output for a new president in over 70 years. This is a significant decline from his first term in 2017, during which he signed 28 bills within the same period.
Trump's second-term legislative record, so far, is notably sparse compared to his predecessors.
How many executive orders has Trump signed to date in his second term and how does this compare to previous presidents for their first 100 days in office?
While legislative activity was limited, President Trump issued a record-breaking number of executive orders in his first 100 days of the second term, totaling 124. This surpasses the previous record held by Franklin D. Roosevelt, who issued 99 executive orders in his first 100 days, and far surpasses the number of executive orders issued in the first 100 days in both his first administration (which was 33 executive orders) and his predecessor’s term.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
The executive orders focused on various areas, including federal budget cuts, regulatory rollbacks, and immigration policies. Notably, President Trump declared multiple national emergencies to implement policies without congressional approval, a move that has raised concerns among legal scholars about the balance of powers.
How many pardons has President Trump issued so far in his second term and how does this compare to previous presidents in their first 100 days?
Trump has issued over 1,500 pardons so far in his second term, including a controversial mass pardon of individuals involved in the January 6, 2021, Capitol attack. This is an unprecedented number, compared to previous presidents in their first 100 days. None of the past five administrations (including the first Trump administration) made any pardons or commutations in their first 100 days in office. Note that this is not to say that there have not been many pardons and commutations made throughout their full administrations, just the first 100 days.
Trump's approach to pardons has been far more aggressive than his predecessors, particularly in granting clemency to political allies and controversial figures. His actions have sparked significant debate over the use of presidential pardon power.
How many legal actions have been filed against the Trump administration in the first 100 days and how does this compare to previous administrations?
As of April 23, 2025, President Donald Trump's administration has faced over 200 legal challenges during the first 100 days of his second term. This marks a significant increase when compared to previous administrations; the current number of legal challenges is also largely proportionate to the increased number of executive orders issued by Trump.
How many deportations have there been during the Trump administration so far and how does this compare to previous presidents?
Despite campaign promises of mass deportations, the administration's first-month deportation figures were lower than those during the same period in Biden's final year and the lowest monthly level since 2000. Legal challenges and international resistance have complicated enforcement efforts.
Data on deportations for previous presidential terms during their first 100 days could not be found. However, given the priority President Trump has put on mass deportation, comparisons of the total number of deportations within entire presidential terms are already being made with previous administrations—the numbers are there for those who care to keep track in the next three (plus) years of the Trump administration. 
David Nevins is co-publisher of The Fulcrum and co-founder and board chairman of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.
A patient with a medical professional.
As Donald Trump completes the first 100 days of his second term, the consequences of his early health care decisions are already coming into view. Through executive orders and agency directives, his administration has set a clear national agenda: cut costs, shrink government, and reduce federal oversight.
History shows that decisions made during a president’s first 100 days have an outsized impact on the nation’s future. In 2009, Barack Obama faced a similar window of opportunity. With unified control of the government and pressure to act quickly on health care, he confronted a fundamental choice: expand coverage, improve quality, or cut costs.
President Obama made health insurance expansion his first priority, setting in motion what would become the Affordable Care Act (ACA)—the most ambitious health care reform in a generation.
In chaos theory, this phenomenon is known as the butterfly effect: a single action can trigger consequences that magnify across time and space. A butterfly flaps its wings in Brazil and a tornado forms weeks later in Texas. Presidential decisions made in the opening months of a term work the same way.
Trump, in his return to power, has made a different choice than Obama: to cut costs. This early decision has set the nation on a new course—one with consequences that will grow larger and more lasting over time. To understand the significance of Trump’s first 100 days on health care, it’s useful to revisit the path Obama charted 16 years ago.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
’09 Obama: Coverage first, built to last
President Obama took office amid economic collapse and a fragmented health care system. With 60 million Americans uninsured, he decided to focus on expanding coverage as the foundation for reform.
Drawing on personal experience—his mother’s cancer battle and his time as a community organizer—Obama believed that access was the gateway to better quality and lower costs.
To ensure the durability of his plan, Obama relied on congressional legislation rather than executive action. In his first 100 days, he convened stakeholders, hosted health care summits, expanded the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and proposed a $634 billion “down payment” on health reform in the federal budget.
These initial steps led to the ACA, which has provided affordable insurance to more than 30 million Americans (cutting the uninsured rate in half), offered subsidies to low- and middle-income families, and guaranteed protections for those with preexisting conditions. The law survived political opposition, legal challenges, and subsequent presidencies, becoming a pillar of the nation’s health care system.
However, those gains came at a price. Annual U.S. health care spending more than doubled—from $2.6 trillion in 2010 to over $5.2 trillion today—without significant improvements in life expectancy or clinical quality.
’25 Trump: Cost cutting and asserting control
In contrast, President Trump returned to the White House in January with a focus on lowering taxes, reducing government spending, and asserting greater executive power.
Health care, which represents almost a third of federal spending, quickly became central to his budget-cutting efforts. Rather than pursue time-consuming congressional legislation, he has acted through executive orders and agency restructuring.
At the center of his domestic agenda is a sweeping tax reform bill—the so-called “big beautiful bill”—which the Congressional Budget Office projects will sharply reduce federal revenue and add trillions to the national debt. To win over fiscal conservatives, the administration is pushing massive spending cuts, starting with health care.
Here are some of the most consequential actions taken during his first 100 days:
Cost-driven actions: Reducing health care expenditures
To achieve his economic plan, Trump has sought to reduce federal spending through:
Cultural and executive power moves: Redefining government’s role
While cutting costs has been the central goal, many of Trump’s actions reflect a broader ideological stance. He’s using executive authority to reshape the values, norms, and institutions that have defined American health care. These include:
Trump and consequences
President Trump’s early actions are already changing how care is accessed, funded, and delivered. The biggest impact will come from efforts to reduce health care spending.
First, coverage will shrink with Medicaid cuts, ACA rollbacks, and funding freezes disproportionately affecting low-income families, young adults, and people with chronic illnesses. As coverage declines, preventable conditions are likely to go untreated, emergency room visits are likely to rise, and hospitals will be forced to provide increasing amounts of unpaid care.
Second, the rollback of global health partnerships and equity-focused programs has already begun to diminish America’s influence abroad, hinder diverse participation in clinical research, and reduce trust in federal health agencies. Slower scientific progress and weakened preparedness for future health crises will put the United States at major risk.
The U.S. Constitution gives presidents broad power to chart the nation’s course. In their first 100 days, Trump and Obama made different health care choices—one prioritizing coverage, the other cutting costs. Each demonstrates the butterfly effect: early decisions ripple across time, expanding in size and impact, and radically altering American health care for better or worse.
Dr. Robert Pearl is a Stanford University professor, Forbes contributor, bestselling author, and former CEO of The Permanente Medical Group.
Leave a Reply