Former CDC Director Robert Redfield says Covid-19 shots should not have been called ‘vaccines’

By SUZANNE DOWNING

Feb. 2, 2026 – Dr. Robert Redfield, who served as director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention from 2018 through early 2021, is now saying the Covid-19 shots should never have been described as vaccines, a departure from how they were presented to the public during the height of the pandemic and during his tenure at the CDC.

In a late January 2026 interview and public remarks, including through the Heritage Foundation, where he is now a senior visiting fellow, Redfield said the injections were never designed to stop transmission. He said it was “probably a misnomer to call it a vaccine.” He described it instead as “more like a medicine” that “doesn’t stop infection.”

Former CDC Director Dr. Robert Redfield: "The vaccine should have never been mandated. It was never meant to prevent transmission… It probably was a misnomer to call it a vaccine. It's really more like a medicine. It doesn't stop infection."pic.twitter.com/bDd2rL5fjU

— Thomas Sowell Quotes (@ThomasSowell) January 23, 2026

The comments represent a significant shift, or at least a reframing, from Redfield’s public posture while he led the CDC during the Trump administration and into the early months of the Biden administration.

During his tenure, Redfield consistently promoted Covid-19 vaccines as critical tools in controlling the pandemic. In public briefings, congressional testimony, and media appearances in 2020 and 2021, he urged Americans to have confidence in the vaccines and encouraged widespread uptake as part of the national public-health response. At the time, he did not characterize the shots as a misnomer or suggest they should not be considered vaccines.

Redfield’s recent remarks reflect hindsight criticism of how expectations around the vaccines were communicated, particularly regarding transmission and public policy.

In other recent appearances, he has said the vaccines were “oversold” and that mandates should never have been imposed.

Public-health understanding of the Covid-19 vaccines has evolved since their initial rollout. Early messaging emphasized reducing infection and transmission, especially against the original strain of the virus.

As the pandemic progressed and new variants emerged, evidence showed the vaccines were far more effective at reducing severe illness, hospitalization, and death than at preventing infection or stopping spread.

That distinction is now widely acknowledged in medical literature and public-health guidance. But it was not conveyed to the public during the emergency phase of the pandemic, when vaccines were sold as a primary path back to normal life.

Redfield’s comments are likely to renew debate over how federal health agencies pushed the now-questionable benefits and how they misunderstood the limitations of Covid-19 vaccines, and whether public trust was affected by messaging that did not fully anticipate the virus’s evolution.