When U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced last month that military personnel would no longer be required to get the flu vaccine, public health experts criticized the policy change, arguing that it would result in more cases of serious illness and undermine force readiness. They took the opportunity to reiterate that vaccines are safe and effective, a fact that has been famously (though inconsistently) questioned by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
But Hegseth didn’t attack vaccines or reject science. He asserted that personal freedoms, including religious liberty and bodily autonomy, were of utmost importance. While not disclaiming the goal of preventing illness — vaccines will still be available to service members — he ranked it second to his vision of freedom. This is where the disagreement between the Pentagon and public health experts really lies: Hegseth’s critics see protecting population health as paramount and safeguarding bodily autonomy as secondary.
The policy change surfaces a set of questions that Americans have had to grapple with before, most notably during the Covid-19 pandemic: Should we stick up for the rights of the individual above all else, or make the common good our top priority? How should the balance between personal choice and collective thriving be struck under a variety of circumstances?
These are issues that deserve to be debated. But as in prior cases where they have arisen, critics of the new policy have mostly avoided engaging these fundamental moral questions. By reiterating scientific findings about the effectiveness of vaccines in disease prevention, public health experts refuse even to acknowledge that their priority for population health may not be everyone’s priority. They imply that policies that pursue other goals fly in the face of science.
How should the balance between personal choice and collective thriving be struck under a variety of circumstances?
Public health experts are not the only ones who use science to delegitimize disagreements over moral priorities. In areas affected by industrial pollution, government officials and industry scientists tend to put the highest priority on economic development. They may ask how risks to health may be ameliorated, or kept in balance with economic benefits, but they often refuse to recognize arguments that put community health first.
For example, when New York State banned fracking in 2015 on the basis that there were too many open questions about its effects on nearby communities, opponents ignored the ban’s precautionary logic and bashed the state for its failure to prove that fracking did harm. Hegseth, too, did not stop at asserting new priorities but also called the vaccine policy he was overturning “not rational,” as though its scientific basis was lacking in some unspecified way.
This widespread practice of using scientific claims to displace moral arguments is toxic to democracy, because it denigrates those who don’t share scientists’ priorities. It is entirely possible that a person would rather risk getting sick and spreading illness to people they love than undergo an unwanted medical procedure. It is entirely reasonable to prefer to avoid pollution, even if it means fundamentally disrupting current patterns of economic growth. These are among the principled positions that deserve to be represented in public discourse. Dismissing them as irrational or expressions of misinformation only makes it harder to talk to one another across our differences.
This widespread practice of using scientific claims to displace moral arguments is toxic to democracy, because it denigrates those who don’t share scientists’ priorities.
Public health experts are right to point out the likely consequences of Hegseth’s policy change. When we decide how to prioritize our social goals, we should have a clear understanding of the trade-offs. But experts also have a responsibility to acknowledge their own priorities and recognize the ones behind the policies that they criticize. Only when we name the real source of our differences can we begin to forge a common way forward.
Gwen Ottinger is professor of politics and environmental studies at Drexel University and author of “The Science of Repair: How People who Believe in Facts Can Build a Better Future” (Oxford University Press, 2026).
This was the order I disobeyed every year for thirty years. Thank you, Secretary Hegseth.