Politicization of the Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee Under Current HHS and NIH Leadership
Call your representatives as a way to fight back against the ideological overtaking of the IACC.
The Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee (IACC) is a Federal advisory committee that helps shape national autism policy and influences roughly $2 billion in annual federal autism research and program funding. Under HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya, concerns have emerged that the committee has become politicized and poorly managed.
The IACC is legally required to operate with transparency, accountability, balanced representation, required by the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). Despite a requirement to meet twice yearly, the IACC has not met since January 2025.
HHS has now replaced all the committee’s public members, while reducing representation from autistic people themselves. The new members are closely connected and promote controversial or scientifically disputed autism theories and treatments, including chelation, hyperbaric oxygen therapy, leucovorin, and vaccine-injury claims. The current IACC promotes now-discredited early-2000s science associated with Defeat Autism Now! (DAN) doctors, effectively reverting autism research back 25 years. Former IACC chair Joshua Gordon stated, “Not a single scientist that I am familiar with as being an expert in autism research is on that list.”
Many members wear multiple hats at once: they run clinics selling autism treatments, lead advocacy organizations, conduct research tied to those treatments, and advise the federal government on autism policy. This creates a coordinated, self-reinforcing system in which the same small group shapes policy, promotes treatments, conducts supporting research, and benefits financially from increased demand.
Advocacy groups tied to IACC members often direct families toward expensive biomedical interventions, while function as marketplaces where services, products, and ideas are promoted together. This creates several risks for federal agencies that could:
Shift federal research priorities toward weak or unproven theories.
Encourage families to use treatments before they are proven safe or effective.
Create financial incentives that drive demand for specialized testing and therapies, meaning the members could make money off of the treatments they recommend.
Give legitimacy to experimental or ineffective treatments that could harm children or undermine trust in public health agencies.
Expand government collection and linking of sensitive health and education data, raising privacy concerns for autistic people and families.
Innovation in autism research is important, but argue that federal policy should be guided by strong scientific evidence, transparency, and independence from financial conflicts of interest. When the same individuals influence policy, research, advocacy, and treatment markets at the same time, concerns about regulatory capture and public accountability increase.
The Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee Charter (IACC)
What is the IACC?
The Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee (IACC) is a a Federal advisory committee that helps coordinate autism policy, research, and services across the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Its recommendations help shape how the federal government spends roughly $2 billion each year on autism-related programs and research, even though the recommendations are not legally binding.
The committee is managed by the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH).
What does the IACC do?
By including both federal and public members, the IACC ensures a broad range of perspectives are represented and discussed in a public forum. According to its Charter, the IACC’s mission is to:
Track autism research, services, and support programs across federal agencies and help coordinate their work.
Review and summarize new developments in autism research, including causes, diagnosis, treatment, early screening, education, community supports, and services across the lifespan.
Advise the HHS Secretary on changes needed to improve federal autism programs and research priorities.
Recommend ways to increase public involvement and make sure community feedback is included in autism policy decisions.
Create a national autism research strategy, including funding recommendations and ways to reduce duplication across federal programs.
Report regularly to Congress and the President on progress in autism research, federal activities, and updates to the national strategy.
The committee reviews topics including autism causes, diagnosis, treatments, education, services, and supports across the lifespan.
Who serves on the IACC?
The IACC includes both federal officials and public members so different perspectives are represented.
Federal members include leaders from agencies involved in autism policy and services, such as:
National Institutes of Health
Administration for Children and Families (ACF)
Administration for Community Living (ACL)
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ)
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS)
Department of Defense (DOD)
Department of Justice (DOJ)
Department of Education
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
Department of Labor (DOL)
Department of Veterans Affairs
Environmental Protection Agency
Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA)
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
Social Security Administration
Public members include:
Autistic individuals
Parents or guardians of autistic people
Representatives from research, advocacy, and service organizations
By law, at least three members must be autistic, three must be parents or guardians, and three
must come from autism-related organizations.
How is the IACC supposed to operate?
The IACC was created by Congress and is governed by federal advisory committee laws designed to ensure transparency and accountability. The committee:
Must meet at least twice each year.
Must announce meetings publicly in the Federal Register.
Must generally hold meetings open to the public.
Must keep public records and meeting materials available online, with limited exceptions.
An NIH official called the Designated Federal Officer (DFO) oversees compliance with these rules, approves agendas, attends meetings, and ensures the committee follows federal law.
Why does the IACC matter?
Although the IACC cannot directly set federal policy, its strategic plans and recommendations strongly influence national autism research priorities, funding decisions, and public health policy.
Concerns About Kennedy’s Changes to the IACC
The Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee (IACC) has not met since January 2025, despite federal rules requiring regular meetings. During that time, the NIH opened and extended applications for new public members. However, several people publicly announced they had already been appointed to the committee before the nomination period had even closed, raising serious transparency concerns that the selection process may have been predetermined.
On December 5th, 2025, Honey Rinicella and John Gilmore posted their appointments from Secretary Kennedy on Facebook. Jennifer Philips, founder of Make a Stand 4 Autism, posted her appointment on LinkedIn. On December 16, 2025, Ginger Taylor announced her IACC appointment on her blog, stating that she had taken the oath of office for the position that same day. HHS did not officially announce the new IACC membership roster until January 28, 2026.
Secretary Kennedy replaced all previous public members of the IACC with 20 new appointees. The new committee is dominated by a small network of connected organizations and individuals who promote controversial autism theories and treatments that are not widely accepted by mainstream science. At the same time, representation from autistic self-advocates was reduced from nine members to three.
Former committee members and outside observers warned that a small, ideologically aligned group could now strongly influence federal autism policy, research priorities, and funding decisions. Some expressed concern that the committee could promote debunked autism treatments or support efforts to revisit vaccine-related theories that have already been extensively studied and rejected by major scientific bodies.
The new IACC also broke with long-standing precedent by appointing a non-federal member, Sylvia Fogel, as chair instead of the director of the National Institute of Mental Health. Fogel herself reportedly said she did not know why she had been selected.
Concerns About New National Autism Coordinator, Diana Diaz-Harrison
On January 30, 2026, Secretary Kennedy removed the current National Autism Coordinator, Susan Daniels, and appointed Diana Diaz-Harrison, founder and CEO of the Arizona Autism Charter Schools network, as the new National Autism Coordinator (NAC). Concerns about Diaz-Harrison’s autism-only charter school network. Research supports inclusive education for autistic students, while segregated settings have been associated with poorer academic, social, and long-term outcomes. Investigations into Diaz-Harrison’s schools found unusually high rates of disciplinary practices against its students. School staff physically restrained 41% of its students and placed 20% in seclusion, far exceeding the national average (.06% restraint).
Experts have warned that these practices can traumatize children and worsen behavior rather than improve it. Federal education officials have repeatedly urged a shift toward de-escalation strategies, yet Diaz-Harrison has indicated interest in expanding similar charter models nationwide.
Concerns About the First IACC Meeting
Additional concerns emerged in April 2026 when IACC Chair Sylvia Fogel published a letter to Secretary Kennedy on the IACC website, issuing policy recommendations to Secretary Kennedy and federal agencies ahead of the committee’s first meeting. Critics noted that many of the recommendations closely matched proposals previously promoted by advocacy organizations connected to current IACC members (Autism Innovation Coalition policy recommendations), raising questions about whether outside advocacy agendas are directly shaping federal autism policy.
Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) Concerns
About FACA: The Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), as amended, 5 U.S.C. chapter 10, governs the establishment, operation, and termination of advisory committees within the executive branch of the Federal Government. FACA defines what constitutes a Federal advisory committee and provides general procedures for the executive branch to follow in operating these committees. FACA ensures that Congress and the public are kept informed about the number, purpose, membership, activities, and costs of advisory committees. FACA committees are advisory bodies only; they can give prescriptive advice, but securing commitments from agencies and developing action or implementation plans violates FACA rules.
The current IACC composition presents a convergence of risk factors:
Prior legal challenges involving unsafe or unsupported treatments: Courts have rejected expert testimony from IACC members and found a lack of scientific acceptance for autism causation claims; Allegations have been made against the use of experimental treatments in children.
Financial and advocacy conflicts: Multiple members are linked through autism treatment advocacy organizations and clinician networks promoting biomedical interventions
Coordinated policy influence capacity: Members with lobbying backgrounds could shift policy and federal funding away from evidence-based practices towards their own agenda.
Without stronger safeguards, there is a credible risk that NIH research priorities could shift away from evidence-based science toward unproven environmental, metabolic, and immune theories - exposing children to preventable harm, misallocating taxpayer funds, and damaging public trust in federal health agencies.
1. Failure to Ensure Fair Balance of Viewpoints 5 U.S.C. App. § 5(b)(2)
FACA requires committees to be “fairly balanced in terms of the points of view represented.” The IACC is dominated by members with aligned perspectives across advocacy networks, representing a narrow range of scientific expertise:
Repeated policy alignment on vaccine-injury, biomedical-causation frameworks, and resulting unvalidated and potentially harmful intervention approaches (e.g., chelation, hyperbaric oxygen, leucovorin).
Many members and organizations participate in MAHA Institute events and are connected to the Children’s Health Defense-aligned ecosystem and to Secretary Kennedy’s presidential campaign.
This IACC operates as a functionally pre-aligned advisory board rather than a neutral body, creating substantial risk of coordinated influence over federal funding priorities, normalization of non-consensus or insufficiently validated science, and integration into federal health agency workflows.
Pertinent legal cases:
AAP vs. Kennedy, F. Supp. 3d (D. Mass. Mar. 16, 2026); General authority “assist” and “advise” does not trump specific statutory requirements; Unfair balance due to lack of meaningful expertise, and a rushed appointment process without normal outreach or vetting undermined legitimacy; Arbitrary and capricious changes are devoid of explanation for deviating from established processes under the Administrative Procedure Act.
National Anti-Hunger Coalition v. Exec. Comm., 557 F. Supp. 524 (D.D.C. 1983); Courts may evaluate whether committee composition is “fairly balanced” and review whether a committee is “dominated by a single viewpoint.”
Cargill, Inc. v. United States, 173 F.3d 323 (5th Cir. 1999); Courts defer to agencies, but will intervene if the balance is clearly lacking.
The documents prepared in advance of the first IACC meeting are so detailed that it is clear that the IACC members violated FACA by performing extensive work in closed, non-public meetings, without the presence of a DFO. FACA committees are advisory bodies and are not intended for implementation planning.
Presenting recommendations and implementation guidelines in advance of the meeting for committee approval violates FACA procedures. The IACC is supposed to meet with a quorum of all members - including federal members - discuss the need for a letter, deliberate on content for the letter, assign a letter drafter, and then have the drafter bring the letter back to the committee for discussion and approval by a majority. Furthermore, the IACC did not discuss the cited issues in a public meeting, allowing for broad input from the American public before deciding on a plan of action.
The proposed recommendations do not represent a fair balance of viewpoints and recycle policy recommendations previously published by IACC members:
Fogel and Cellini developed Autism Innovation Coalition policy recommendations related to Elevating co-occurring biomedical conditions as a national policy priority, which now appear in Fogel’s attached documents on the IACC website, including:
Making Diagnostic Overshadowing of medical conditions a Standard-of-Care Issue
Implementing CMS guidelines for Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnostic, and Treatment (EPSDT) and expanding Medicaid and insurance coverage for evaluation of regression, safety, immune, metabolic, mitochondrial, and GI-related conditions.
NIH-related policy changes to shape the evidence base, funding, training, and clinical practice nationwide, including investments in research related to folate transport, metabolic issues, immune issues, and regression
2. Failure to Provide Public Notice of Meetings in the Federal Register - 5 U.S.C. App. § 10(a)(2)
Coordinated preparation of extensive documentation prior to an IACC meeting suggests a failure to provide advance public notice of meetings. If substantive discussion or policy framing occurred, this would constitute a violation of FACA’s openness and notice provisions. Even if only administrative, the lack of disclosure undermines transparency. Given member overlap in organizational membership, pre-existing advocacy alignment, and personal relationships, including with Secretary Kennedy, it is plausible that substantive deliberations are occurring outside FACA-compliant settings.
Pertinent legal cases:
Public Citizen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 491 U.S. 440 (1989); the Supreme Court emphasized FACA’s purpose to prevent secret advisory influence and ensure transparency
Food Chemical News v. Young, 900 F.2d 328 (D.C. Cir. 1990); Courts enforce strict compliance with notice and openness requirements
3. Failure of Designated Federal Officer Oversight - 5 U.S.C. App. § 10(e)
FACA requires that a DFO approve and attend all meetings. The IACC Charter further specifies that the NIMH Director assigns an NIH employee as DFO to ensure compliance. Any meetings conducted without DFO oversight would constitute a structural compliance failure and weaken the required federal control over advisory deliberations.
Pertinent legal case: Food Chemical News v. Young, 900 F.2d 328 (D.C. Cir. 1990)
Other FACA Concerns & Compliance Risks Include:
Significant Ties to Secretary Kennedy: Over half of the IACC have personal, professional, or commercial ties to Secretary Kennedy and his foundation, Children’s Health Defense (CHD). Secretary Kennedy has personally endorsed many members, appeared at their events, dedicated his books to them (Mumper, Taylor, Gilmore, Cellini), and called them dear friends (Slepcevic), with Taylor listing Kennedy as a personal reference on her resume. CHD has published and sold IACC member books (Handley, Slepcevic, Mumper, Gilmore). Slepcevic and Gilmore raised money for Kennedy’s presidential campaign.
Image 1: The image above shows some of the new members of the IACC, and how they affiliate with RFK Jr., his organization the Children’s Health Defense, and their affiliation to other concerning groups. TACA stands for: The Autism Community In Action ANN stands for: Autism Action Network. MAPS stands for: Medical Academy of Pediatrics
Conflict-of-Interest and Governance Concerns: Many members have financial & ideological stakes in specific theories or treatments (biomedical interventions/vaccine claims), which could bias recommendations or strategic planning. Participation in external networks that overlap with federal advisory discussions may create opportunities for policy alignment across advocacy groups, reinforcing shared viewpoints and amplifying influence within HHS decision-making channels.
A Pattern of Non-Transparency: Delayed disclosure of membership, limited public visibility into selection and appointment processes, and potential undisclosed interactions contribute to broader concerns about adherence to FACA’s transparency goals. IACC membership was not publicly disclosed until well after appointments had effectively been made, suggesting possible premature finalization of membership before proper vetting by the National Autism Coordinator.
Predominance of Non-Consensus and Non-Mainstream Scientific Positions: The majority of members advocate or promote treatments and theories not widely accepted in mainstream medical consensus; alternative biomedical or environmental causation theories; and interventions lacking robust scientific validation. The overrepresentation of closely aligned viewpoints contributes to a lack of fair balance.
IACC Charter Compliance Issues:
Failure to Meet Meeting Frequency: The Amended 2024 IACC Charter requires the Committee to meet at least twice within a fiscal year; the Committee met only once in 2025.
Selection of IACC Chair: The IACC Charter delegates to the NIMH Director the selection of the IACC Chair for a term not to exceed two years. Historically, the NIMH Director has always selected themselves to serve as chair. It is unknown whether the proposed process was carried out in selecting Fogel.
Change in Meeting Leadership: A new National Autism Coordinator was appointed to moderate the meeting without a publicized search process; the speed of the decision and the lack of a published rationale raise concerns about transparency.
What can you do? CALL YOUR REPRESENTATIVES! Tell them you’re concerned about the IACC membership make up, and FACA violations that HHS is carrying out.
IACC Member Names: Sylvia Fogel, M.D., Daniel Rossignol, M.D., Elizabeth Mumper, M.D., John Rodakis, Elena Monarch, Ph.D., Laura Cellini, Jennifer Philips, John Gilmore, M.P.P., Caden Larson, Elizabeth Bonker, Lisa Wiederlight, M.P.P., Toby Rogers, Ph.D., M.P.P., Walter Zahorodny, Ph.D., Bill Oldham, Honey Rinicella, Krystal Higgins, Ginger Taylor, M.S., Daniel Keely, Lisa Ackerman, Tracy Slepcevic, Katie Sweeney