Former CDC Director Robert Redfield calls vaccinating pregnant women against COVID-19 a “mistake,” citing limited benefits and early data amid renewed scrutiny of public health messaging.
By Hotspotnews
In a recent appearance on “Katie Pavlich Tonight,” former Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Dr. Robert Redfield stated that recommending COVID-19 vaccines for pregnant women was a mistake. Redfield, who led the agency during the early pandemic under the Trump administration, said he had never supported the policy.
“I never thought we should vaccinate pregnant women. I was not in favor of that policy recommendation because the COVID vaccine did not prevent infection,” Redfield said. He explained that the primary benefit of the vaccines was reducing serious illness and death among those at highest risk—largely people over age 65—and that this group did not include the typical pregnant population. “Obviously, that doesn’t include the pregnant women population. So I think it was a mistake to vaccinate pregnant women.”
Redfield referenced early monitoring data discussed in a New England Journal of Medicine report drawn from the CDC’s v-safe pregnancy registry. That preliminary analysis involved 827 completed pregnancies among vaccinated individuals and reported 115 pregnancy losses (or, in related figures, 104 spontaneous abortions under 20 weeks). He noted he has not seen data definitively establishing a causal link to miscarriages but argued the recommendation itself did not make sense given the vaccines’ limitations.
The comments come amid revived attention to private text messages from January 2021 involving Dr. Anthony Fauci (then director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases), then-CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, and Vivek Murthy (who became Surgeon General). In those messages, Fauci raised a theoretical concern that the significant cytokine response and fever common after the second dose of mRNA vaccines “could be associated with miscarriage in the 1st trimester.” Walensky and Murthy described the point as valid. Shortly afterward, public statements from officials emphasized that monitoring of vaccinated pregnant women showed “no red flags.”
Redfield highlighted the broader issue of transparency. He indicated the real shortcoming was the absence of open discussion that would have allowed the public—and expectant mothers—to weigh the information and make their own decisions. He has previously criticized vaccine mandates more generally, arguing the shots should have been targeted to high-risk groups rather than broadly required, since they did not stop infection or transmission.
During the pandemic, federal health agencies ultimately recommended COVID-19 vaccination for pregnant people, citing risks of severe disease from the virus itself during pregnancy and accumulating safety data. Early v-safe figures were preliminary and later clarified in corrections and follow-up analyses; subsequent larger studies have generally reported miscarriage rates consistent with background population levels and no clear safety signals for major adverse pregnancy outcomes. COVID-19 infection has been associated with higher risks of complications for both mother and baby. Policy has evolved in recent years, with greater emphasis in some official guidance on individual consultation with healthcare providers.
Redfield’s remarks and the renewed focus on the early private exchanges have fueled discussion about how risk-benefit information was communicated to the public, particularly for groups such as pregnant women who were not the primary intended high-risk beneficiaries of the initial vaccination campaign. The former CDC director has called for greater accountability and openness around these decisions.
