Political Pistachio

By Douglas V. Gibbs

U.S. Senator Rand Paul (R‑KY) has introduced legislation that strikes at the heart of a federal arrangement many Americans don’t even realize exists: nationwide liability immunity for vaccine manufacturers. His bill, S.3853, is formally titled “A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to end the liability shield for vaccine manufacturers, and for other purposes.”  It was introduced on February 11, 2026, and referred to the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.  Senator Mike Lee (R‑UT) has joined as a cosponsor.

At its core, the bill challenges the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, a federal framework that rerouted vaccine‑injury claims away from the courts and into a federal compensation program.  For forty years, manufacturers have enjoyed a level of legal insulation unmatched in any other sector of American industry.  The federal government assumed the role of gatekeeper, deciding which injuries count, which claims are allowed, and how compensation is handled.

CDC data show millions of post‑vaccination injury reports have been submitted over the years, and an HHS–Harvard Pilgrim analysis concluded that the federal tracking system captures fewer than one percent of adverse events.  Whether one interprets those numbers as alarming or merely indicative of reporting limitations, the constitutional question remains the same: Does the federal government possess the constitutional authority to shield private corporations from the consequences of their own products?

The Framers of the Constitution had just emerged from an era in which the British Empire was shielding British merchants from any consequences, a practice known as mercantilism.  They went out of their way to make sure the federal government was deprived of any authority to interfere with private enterprises.  Government exists to secure rights, not to redistribute them.

If government grants immunity to one class of actors, it necessarily diminishes the rights of another; in this case, the right of an injured citizen to seek redress through the judicial system.

The Founding Fathers did not design a federal government empowered to pick winners and losers in civil liability.  They certainly did not envision Congress constructing a protective bubble around an entire industry.  The Constitution grants no enumerated power allowing the federal government to override state tort law or to preempt the courts from hearing legitimate claims of injury.

The 1986 Act that gave vaccine producers immunity did exactly that.

That law replaced the constitutional order.  Courts are there to adjudicate disputes, and juries must then weigh evidence.  If you have a federal administrative mechanism that decides what counts as an injury, how much is it really worth?  Since when is it constitutional, much less reasonable, for government to make sure a manufacturer bears no responsibility at all?  That is not federalism.  That is mercantilism at its worst – and remember, we fought a revolution to get rid of that kind of centralized control.

Accountability is not anti‑science.  While critics may argue that removing liability protections will “undermine public health,” the reality is that accountability is not the enemy of science.  In fact, accountability is what keeps science honest.  Every other medical manufacturer, from pharmaceutical companies to medical‑device makers, operates under the expectation that if their product harms someone, they can be held responsible.

Why should one industry be exempt?

The Constitution does not carve out exceptions for politically favored sectors.  It does not say, “Congress shall make no law abridging the right to seek redress, unless the product is important.”  Rights are rights precisely because they are not contingent on political convenience.

S.3853 does not dictate scientific outcomes.  It does not tell states what to do.  It does not ban vaccines or regulate medical practice.  What it does is restore the constitutional balance by removing a federal shield that never should have existed in the first place.

If vaccine manufacturers produce safe, effective products, they will have nothing to fear from the same legal standards that apply to every other industry.  If they do not, the courts, not bureaucrats, should determine the consequences.

This is the essence of constitutional governance: a system where power is limited, rights are protected, and no private entity is elevated above the law.

Senator Paul’s bill invites Congress to revisit a decades‑old policy that has drifted far from the Founders’ design.  Whether the Senate will take that invitation remains to be seen.  But the constitutional question is unavoidable.

A government that can shield corporations from accountability is a government that has forgotten its purpose and denies constitutional principles.

— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary