United States Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F Kennedy Jr has announced that the US is to cut funding for mRNA vaccine development – a move that health experts say is “dangerous” and could make the US much more vulnerable to future outbreaks of respiratory viruses like COVID-19.

Kennedy is known for his vaccine scepticism and recently ousted all 17 members of a scientific advisory panel on vaccines at the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to be replaced with his own selections. However, this latest announcement is just part of a series of moves by President Donald Trump himself that appear to target the vaccine industry and give increasing weight to the arguments of vaccine sceptics in the US.

Trump has previously undermined the efficacy of vaccines and sought to cut funding to vaccine programmes. Public health experts sounded the alarm after his election win in November, warning there would likely be a “war on vaccines” under Trump.

“My main concern is that this is part of an increasingly ideological rather than evidence-based approach to healthcare and vaccination in particular that is being adopted in the US,” David Elliman, associate professor at University College London, told Al Jazeera.

“This is likely to increase vaccine hesitancy … [and] will result in more suffering and death, particularly for children. This would be a tragedy, even more so because it is avoidable.”

What new cuts to vaccine funding have been made?

In a statement posted on Tuesday on X, Kennedy said 22 projects on mRNA vaccine development worth nearly $500m will be cancelled. The main reason, he said, was that the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) in his Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) had reviewed mRNA vaccines and found them to be “ineffective” in fighting mutating viruses.

“A single mutation can make mRNA vaccines ineffective,” Kennedy said in a video statement. “After reviewing the science and consulting top experts, … HHS has determined that mRNA technology poses more risk than benefits for these respiratory viruses.”

Instead, Kennedy said, the US will shift mRNA funding to other vaccine development technologies that are “safer” and “remain effective”.

Some notable institutions and companies that will be affected by the latest decision, as listed on the HHS website, include:

• Emory University and Tiba Biotech (terminated contracts)
• Pfizer, Sanofi Pasteur, CSL Seqirus (rejected or cancelled proposals)
• Luminary Labs, ModeX (“descoped” or weakened contracts)
• AstraZeneca and Moderna (“restructured” contracts)

What are mRNA vaccines, and are they really ineffective against virus mutations?

Messenger ribonucleic acid vaccines prompt the body to produce proteins that help it build immunity against certain microbes. They differ from traditional vaccines that introduce weakened or dead microbes into the body to stimulate immunity. Both types of vaccines have their strengths and weaknesses, but mRNA vaccines are notably faster to manufacture although they don’t provide the lifelong coverage that traditional vaccines might.

However, Elliman said virus mutations are a general problem for any vaccines and present a challenge scientists are still contending with.

“As yet, there are no vaccines in use that have solved this problem, so this is not a good reason for abandoning mRNA vaccines,” Elliman said. “The technology has great promise for vaccines and therapeutics, so ceasing research in the field without good evidence is unjustified.”

The move, he added, could discourage investors and scientists, both inside and outside the US, from keeping up research.

Dorit R Reiss, a law professor at the University of California, San Francisco, who focuses on vaccine law, told Al Jazeera that the decision is “troubling and shortsighted”.

“Procedurally, the decision was done in a very flawed manner. At the least, there should be notice and an opportunity for hearing and explanation under our administrative law, and there was instead a short and cursory X video with no references, no real data,” she said.

The move will not only hurt innovation, she said, but will also leave the country less prepared for emergencies.

What are RFK’s views on vaccines?

The health secretary has long been considered a vaccine sceptic.

Kennedy formerly chaired Children’s Health Defense – an anti-vaccine advocacy group formed in 2007 – until 2023 when he announced his run for the presidency. The organisation has also campaigned against the fortification of drinking water with fluoride, which prevents tooth decay.

During a 2013 autism conference, Kennedy compared the CDC’s childhood vaccine programme to Nazi-era crimes. “To me, this is like Nazi death camps, what happened to these kids,” he said, referring to an increasing number of children diagnosed with autism. “I can’t tell you why somebody would do something like that. I can’t tell you why ordinary Germans participated in the Holocaust.”

In a 2023 interview with Fox News, Kennedy claimed vaccines cause autism. He cited a widely debunked study by Andrew Wakefield, a discredited British doctor and antivaccine activist whose study on the matter has since been retracted from journals. In another 2023 podcast, Kennedy said, “No vaccine is safe or effective.”

Aside from his vaccine scepticism, Kennedy, also known as RFK Jr, has also made several controversial remarks about other health issues, such as COVID-19. He criticised vaccine mandates and lockdown restrictions during the pandemic under former President Joe Biden. He also claimed in a leaked video in 2022 that COVID-19 “attacked certain races disproportionately” because of their genetic makeup and Ashkenazi Jews were most immune to the virus. Several research studies, however, found that social inequalities were major influences on how COVID-19 affected different ethno-social groups because certain people had reduced access to care.

During a congressional hearing in the lead-up to his appointment in Trump’s administration, Kennedy denied making several of the controversial statements attributed to him in the past. He also promised to maintain existing vaccine standards.

What are Trump’s views on vaccines?

Trump has flip-flopped on this issue.

He has previously downplayed the usefulness of vaccines and, in particular, criticised the schedules under which children receive several vaccine doses within their first two years. In his election campaign last year, Trump promised to dismantle vaccine mandates in schools.

In a 2007 interview with the South Florida Sun-Sentinel, Trump claimed that an autism “epidemic” had arisen as a result of vaccines, a theory which has since been debunked. “My theory – and I study it because I have young children – my theory is the shots [vaccines]. We’re giving these massive injections at one time, and I really think it does something to the children.”

In subsequent interviews, Trump called childhood vaccines a “monster shot” and in 2015 during a debate among Republican presidential candidates said vaccines were “meant for a horse, not a child”.

In 2015, he told a reporter he had never received a flu shot.

But Trump has also spoken in favour of vaccines at times. During his first term as president, Trump said at a news briefing that children “have to get their shots” after outbreaks of measles emerged across the country. “The vaccinations are so important. This is really going around now,” he said.

Additionally, in his first term during the COVID-19 pandemic, his administration initially downplayed the virus, but it ultimately oversaw the rapid production of COVID-19 vaccines in a project it called Operation Warp Speed.

After Biden became president in 2021, Trump’s camp criticised his vaccine and face mask mandates, which critics said contributed to rising levels of antivaccine sentiment among conservative voters.

Trump also avoided using Operation Warp Speed’s success as a selling point in last year’s presidential campaign. He also did not publicly announce that he had received initial and booster COVID-19 vaccine shots before leaving the White House.

Has the Trump administration targeted vaccines more broadly?

During Trump’s second term, the US introduced vaccine regulations that some critics said undermine the country’s vaccine system.

Furthermore, the Trump administration has cut funding to the US Agency for International Development, which supported hundreds of vaccine development programmes across the world.

• In February, Trump halted federal funding for schools that required students to have what his administration called “coercive” COVID-19 vaccines.
• In May, Kennedy announced that the federal government would no longer recommend COVID-19 vaccines for healthy children and pregnant women without giving details about the reasons behind the change in policy. That went against the advice of US health officials who had previously urged boosters for young children.
• In June, Kennedy fired all 17 members of a CDC panel of vaccine experts, claiming that the board was “rife with conflicts”. The panel, which had been appointed by Biden, was responsible for recommending how vaccines are used and for whom. Kennedy said the move would raise public confidence, stating that the US was “prioritising the restoration of public trust above any specific pro- or antivaccine agenda. However, the move drew condemnation from scientists and health bodies.
• At the same time, the Food and Drug Administration, which also comes under the remit of the HHS, has approved at least one COVID-19 vaccine. In May, the FDA approved Novavax’s non-mRNA, protein-based COVID-19 vaccine although only for older adults and those over the age of 12 who also have underlying health conditions that put them at higher risk from the virus. That was unusual for the US, where vaccines are usually approved without such limitations.
• The 2026 budget proposal to Congress does not include funding for the Global Vaccine Alliance (GAVI), a public-private entity formed in 2002 to support vaccine distribution to low and middle-income countries. GAVI was instrumental in securing vaccines for several countries in Africa and other regions during the COVID-19 pandemic when it was feared that richer countries could stockpile the available doses. The US currently provides more than 10 percent of GAVI’s funding. In 2024, that amounted to $300m.

Did Trump seek to undermine vaccine research and development during his first term as well?

Yes.

• Trump’s health budget proposals in 2018 and subsequently proposed budget cuts to the National Institute of Health and the CDC would have impacted immunisation programmes and a wide range of life-saving research on vaccines. However, the proposals were rejected by Congress.
• In May 2018, the Trump administration disbanded the Global Health and Biodefense Unit of the National Security Council. The team, which was set up to help prepare the US for pandemics and vaccine deployments, was formed in 2015 under President Barack Obama’s administration during an Ebola epidemic. Later, when the COVID-19 pandemic reached the US, scientists blamed the country’s vulnerability on Trump’s decision.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has underlined he will make no territorial concessions to Russia ahead of a scheduled meeting between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin on the future of the war in Ukraine.

The US-Russia meeting is due to take place in Alaska on 15 August.

Hours before announcing the meeting, Trump had signalled Ukraine might have to cede territory to end the war, which began with Russia’s full-scale invasion in February 2022.

Zelensky said in a Telegram post on Saturday that “Ukrainians will not give their land to the occupier”. He reiterated that Ukraine must be involved in any solution for peace, and said he is ready to work with partners for a “real” and “lasting” peace.

Zelensky said Ukraine “will not give Russia awards for what it has done”.

“The answer to the Ukrainian territorial issue is already in the Constitution of Ukraine. No one will and cannot deviate from this,” he added.

His statement followed comments from Trump at the White House on Friday that there “will be some swapping of territories, to the betterment of both”.

“You’re looking at territory that’s been fought over for three and a half years, a lot of Russians have died. A lot of Ukrainians have died,” the US president said.

He did not provide further details on what any such proposal would look like.

Sacrificing land for peace has been the Trump position all along. Zelensky has always made clear that is unacceptable under Ukraine’s constitution and would only reward Russia for starting the war.

While Ukraine’s president has been careful not to criticise Trump, his post on social media makes clear that he will not accept it.

Trump announced his meeting with Putin – which was later confirmed by the Kremlin – on Friday, saying details would follow.

Zelensky on Saturday said that Ukraine is ready for “real solutions that can bring peace” but underlined that Ukraine needed to be involved.

“Any solutions that are against us, any solutions that are without Ukraine, are simultaneously solutions against peace,” he said.

“We are ready, together with President Trump, together with all partners, to work for a real, and most importantly, lasting peace – a peace that will not collapse because of Moscow’s wishes.”

This is what Ukraine, and many European allies, were always worried about – Trump and Putin trying to do a deal without Ukraine present.

Trump’s words on Russia may have hardened in recent months, but for Ukraine they have yet to be followed by tangible actions.

The US president’s deadline for Russia to agree to a ceasefire or face more sanctions has passed without any apparent consequences. Now, reports suggest Trump is still willing to discuss Ukraine giving up some of its territory in return for a ceasefire when he meets Putin in Alaska next week.

The BBC’s US partner CBS News, citing a senior White House official, reported that it remains possible Zelensky could end up being involved in some way, as planning for the Friday meeting is still fluid.

On the ground there is a resignation that any initial peace talks may not include Ukraine.

Among soldiers and civilians the BBC spoke to there is a strong desire for peace. There is exhaustion from the constant fighting and Russian drone and missile attacks.

But there is little evidence that Ukraine is willing to accept a peace at any price – much less one that will be forced on it without its voice being heard.

She holds no known official title in North Korea. The outside world has never heard her voice. The North’s state media has not even named her, referring to her only as the “most beloved,” “respected” or “dear” daughter of its leader.

But intelligence officials and analysts in South Korea are paying close attention to the young woman whom they consider to be her father’s most likely successor.

She is believed to be just 12.

The New York Times analyzed hundreds of images and videos of Ju-ae’s public appearances since her debut three years ago to trace her transformation from a shy girl by her father’s side to a poised public figure who shares center stage with him.

Some analysts say she has largely replaced her mother, Mr. Kim’s wife, Ri Sol-ju, in the role of first lady. North Korea has been ruled by the Kim family since its founding at the end of World War II, making it the only dynasty in the communist world.

South Korean intelligence officials believe that Mr. Kim most likely has two children. There have also been unconfirmed reports that he might have a third child, possibly a son older than Ju-ae. But Ju-ae is the only child who has made public appearances. If she is her father’s designated successor, she would be in line to become the first woman to rule North Korea’s deeply patriarchal and highly militarized society and the world’s newest nuclear power. Mr. Kim is only 41 but, with a family history of heart trouble, preparing a successor makes sense.

Here is a look at Ju-ae’s rise.

Taking the Stage

Ju-ae has undergone a striking transformation in North Korea’s tightly choreographed state media.

Intelligence officials and analysts in South Korea caution against firm conclusions about her future role. But as her profile has risen, she has eclipsed her mother and Mr. Kim’s powerful sister Kim Yo-jong, also once considered a potential successor, as the main female face of the ruling family.

When Mr. Kim and his daughter visited the greenhouse complex, state media called them “great persons of guidance” — an honorific that over the years has been reserved for only North Korea’s top leader and his designated successor.

North Korea also began issuing postage stamps bearing the images of father and daughter together.

“In North Korea, where officials and people are not ready to accept a female leader, Kim Jong-un is making his daughter’s successor status a fait accompli by repeatedly exposing her through state media,” said Cheong Seong-chang, an analyst at the Sejong Institute in Seoul who has written books on Mr. Kim and his family.

A New Look

Ju-ae’s birth and name were first revealed to the outside world by the retired N.B.A. star Dennis Rodman, who met the Kim family during a visit to North Korea in 2013.

When she made her first public appearance in 2022 in a white padded winter jacket, Ju-ae looked no different from the other children of the elites in Pyongyang. But as she has grown, her clothes have become more formal, and she has been transformed into a figure of authority. Her wardrobe now includes tailored leather coats with fur collars and two-piece designer suits.

As her mother has receded from public view, Ju-ae has begun to adopt her sense of fashion.

Her mannerisms and demeanor have also changed. Even something as small as how she claps looks different now than it did two years ago.

“The child who first appeared as a family curiosity is now a polished, rehearsed figure woven into North Korea’s ongoing story of dynastic power,” said Donald Southerton, the author of “Korea 101.” “Each photo, parade walk and salute I see as a carefully staged story of succession, legitimacy and continuity for the Kim dynasty.”

Should a brother emerge, Ju-ae may end up serving as a mere placeholder, said Kang Dong-wan, an expert on North Korea at Dong-A University in South Korea. For now, though, her prominent portrayal is sending a message to North Koreans that the Kim family rule will continue into a fourth generation.

Her Main Inheritance

Mr. Kim chose the launch of an intercontinental ballistic missile, or ICBM, for his daughter’s public debut in November 2022. Since that day, he has taken her to other nuclear-related sites, introducing her to officials involved in North Korea’s weapons programs. He has lauded the arsenal as a major legacy of the family’s rule.

When Mr. Kim himself was being groomed to succeed his father, he first established his authority with the military, the key to maintaining power. Now, by taking Ju-ae to military events, Mr. Kim has been showing her how he handles the top brass.

He has also offered senior military officers opportunities to meet and show loyalty to her, analysts said.

Mr. Kim’s Health

By preparing a successor publicly from an early age, Mr. Kim may be trying to avoid the mistake his father made, analysts say. It was not until after his father had a stroke in 2008 that Mr. Kim was unveiled as the heir apparent.

That led to uncertainty about the younger Mr. Kim. In his early years, he faced skepticism from outside analysts who dismissed him as an inexperienced leader and argued that he would not last long.

That was before Mr. Kim executed his uncle, had his half brother assassinated by his agents in Malaysia and purged several top generals to establish his unchallenged authority.

Now it is primarily Mr. Kim’s health, not his hold on power, that is in question. He is about 5 feet 7 inches and weighs about 310 pounds, according to South Korean intelligence officials. They added that he had unhealthy habits, including chain-smoking, heavy wining and dining, and frequently staying up into the early morning to surf the internet, where he likes to browse weapons sites.

Mr. Kim is believed to have cardiovascular issues, which contributed to the deaths of both his father and grandfather.

One advantage to grooming a successor early, even a young child, is leverage against his American and South Korean adversaries, said Sung-Yoon Lee, the author of “The Sister: North Korea’s Kim Yo Jong, the Most Dangerous Woman in the World.”

“It tells them: ‘We have all the time in the world, while you are bound by term limits of four to five years,’” Mr. Lee said.

Mexican officials say sportswear giant took design idea from Indigenous community in country’s southern Oaxaca state.

Mexico’s government is seeking compensation from Adidas, accusing the sportswear giant of cultural appropriation for launching a new shoe design strikingly similar to traditional Indigenous footwear known as huaraches.

Adidas’s new Oaxaca Slip-On was created by United States fashion designer Willy Chavarria, who has Mexican heritage.

But the footwear has drawn strong pushback from officials in Mexico’s southern state of Oaxaca, who say no authorisation was given by the Indigenous community, in the village of Villa de Hidalgo Yalalag, behind the original design.

“It’s collective intellectual property. There must be compensation. The heritage law must be complied with,” Mexico’s President Claudia Sheinbaum said during her regular news conference on Friday.

“Big companies often take products, ideas and designs from Indigenous communities,” Sheinbaum said.

“We are looking at the legal part to be able to support them,” she said.

The government said that Adidas representatives had agreed to meet with Oaxaca authorities.

In a public letter to Adidas, Oaxaca state governor, Salomon Jara Cruz, criticised the company’s design – which has a sneaker sole topped with the weave of huarache sandals – saying that “creative inspiration” is not a valid justification for using cultural expressions that “provide identity to communities”.

“Culture isn’t sold, it’s respected,” he said.

Mexican news outlet Periodico Supremo said the country’s National Institute of Indigenous Peoples will launch a legal challenge over the Adidas design, and asked followers on social media: “Are you going to buy them?”

🔴 Están “padres”….🩴

Gobierno de #México defiende propiedad intelectual indígena, en contra de la reconocida marca ADIDAS (@adidas)

El INPI (@INPImx) reclamará legalmente el uso indebido del diseño tradicional de guaraches originarios de Villa Hidalgo Yalálag, #Oaxaca

¿Vas a… pic.twitter.com/KPtrfZMLGC

— PERIÓDICO SupreMo 🔴 (@Diario_Supremo) August 8, 2025

Translation: The government of Mexico defends Indigenous intellectual property, against the well-known brand ADIDAS. The INPI will legally challenge the improper use of the traditional design of huaraches originating from Villa Hidalgo Yalalag, Oaxaca. Are you going to buy them?

The controversy is the latest instance of Mexican officials denouncing major clothing brands or designers using unauthorised Indigenous art or designs from the region, with previous complaints raised about fast fashion juggernaut Shein, Spain’s Zara and high-end labels Carolina Herrera and Louis Vuitton.

Mexico’s Deputy Culture Minister Marina Nunez confirmed Adidas had contacted Oaxacan officials to discuss “restitution to the people who were plagiarised”.

Neither Adidas nor the designer Chavarria, who was born in the US to an Irish-American mother and a Mexican-American father, immediately responded to requests for comment from reporters.

Chavarria had previously told Sneaker News that he had intended to celebrate his cultural heritage through his work with Adidas.

“I’m very proud to work with a company that really respects and elevates culture in the truest way,” he said.

Handicrafts are a crucial economic lifeline in Mexico, providing jobs for about half a million people across the country. The industry accounts for approximately 10 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP) of states such as Oaxaca, Jalisco, Michoacan and Guerrero.

For Viridiana Jarquin Garcia, a huaraches creator and vendor in Oaxaca’s capital, the Adidas shoes were a “cheap copy” of the kind of work that Mexican artists take time and care to craft.

“The artistry is being lost. We’re losing our tradition,” she said in front of her small booth of leather shoes.