Section 5(c) of Executive Order 14420, signed August 10 and published at 91 Fed. Reg. 53,173
“This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.”
Read the last four words.
“Or any other person”…
Yes it actually says that no party may enforce this order against anyone. Not an agency. Not an officer. Not your school district, not your pediatrician, not a state health department.
Everything above that clause is obviously a mere sentiment and lip service championing informed consent. None of it is a real order or rule you can hand a judge.
And what’s above it is important, so let’s get into it. Section 1 commits this administration to “maximal parental choice over childhood vaccines” and to “the fundamental principles of personal autonomy and informed consent.”
Personal autonomy. INFORMED CONSENT. Signed, in the Federal Register, in 2026.
Four pages later, the escape hatch.
Yes, it’s boilerplate. That disclaimer runs in most executive orders under presidents of both parties, and any lawyer defending this one will say so, correctly. An order instructs the executive branch. It isn’t legislation. The clause is drafting spell-ing and witchcraft of drafting hygiene.
OK. Now read Section 4.
“The Attorney General shall take appropriate measures to further meritorious legal actions challenging State laws that conflict with States’ constitutional and Federal statutory obligations related to parental authority, religious freedom, disability accommodations, and equal protection under the law...”
Shall. Not may. Section 4(b) mandates Justice, Education and HHS on their contractors and grantees.
So the order does contemplate litigation — a lot of it. It hands the courtroom to the Justice Department but sadly hands you 5(c) barring litigation
Dear Trump, whats going on here because can’t have it both ways. Either this thing carries legal force on parental authority and consent, in which case explain why the only party who gets to walk into court holding it works for the government, or it carries none, in which case stop printing the words INFORMED CONSENT in the purpose section and boasting that you care. This order is the OPPOSITE of caring about informed consent and it’s insulting to the people.
Think about what this order means at a clinic counter next month. A mother reads the headlines, believes the President gave her a choice, says no. Then the school tells her the order is merely advisory and 5(c) means she can’t cite it against them. She’s right about what he said but it outrageously can’t help her demand real informed consent.
The new vaccine executive order sends the Attorney General to court, yet bars you from it ←
Section 4 orders DOJ to sue states over parental rights. Section 5(c) says you can't cite the same order against your school, your pediatrician, or anyone else.
Read together, its written to protect the government and NOT the people.
Section 2(c) — agencies shall “take any appropriate steps to advance” the recommendations, “to the fullest extent allowable by law.”
Section 2(d) — states “are advised” to “consider updating” their laws. School mandates are state law. This order doesn’t touch one of them.
Section 5(b) — “subject to the availability of appropriations.”
What actually binds is CONGRESS & why this is in court now
Congress put consent in statutes. 50 U.S.C. § 1520a(d) — no biological agent testing on civilians without prior informed consent. 10 U.S.C. § 980 — no federal research funds without it. 10 U.S.C. § 1107 — no investigational drug for a service member without it.
None of them carries a clause telling you that you can’t enforce it.
In 2004 that difference won a case. Judge Emmet Sullivan shut down the Pentagon’s anthrax program in Doe v. Rumsfeld because § 1107 required consent, no waiver had been signed, and troops were being used as “guinea pigs for experimental drugs.”
Same courthouse that’s buried consent claims for eighty years. The variable was a statute.
§ 1520a(d) is the lead claim in Eshleman v. Hegseth, 1:26-cv-01543, D.D.C., before Judge Boasberg. Built on a statute, for that reason.
It is up to us all to step in where courts ARE ALLOWED to challenge this mess!
You can help BIG TIME to help humanity fund the attorney for the mRNA fight in court NOW: https://donorbox.org/mandamusfund
Yesterday on August 24. HHS published a Request for Information (RFI), docket HHS-OS-2026-0332, asking the public whether its vaccine categories “unintentionally imply that parental permission, individual consent, or meaningful clinical discussion applies only to shared clinical decision-making recommendations.”
August 10 — Order: consent is a fundamental principle, and no one can enforce it.
August 24 — Question: does consent apply to all vaccines or only some? Please advise.
As you can see by this article they are asking a question they already answered in writing, in the negative, just fourteen short days earlier.
The questions to the public on informed consent is the opening. An RFI builds an ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD of your comments — a file a court can be pointed at later, holding every comment they got and every one they ignored. Agencies do actually lose on that file - so let’s build it and comment our opinions!
The request for your comments on informed consent closes SEPTEMBER 20, 2026.
The difference between a legal promise in a Presidential ORDER or law and a legally protected right is whether somebody built a record. Section 5(c) is what a government writes when it’s sure nobody will speak up or hold them accountable
Build the record.
Power to the people!
Lady Xylie — IoJ
The window closes September 20. Heres detailed instructions and comment ideas:
Remember: You can help BIG TIME to help humanity fund the attorney for the mRNA fight in court NOW
It makes a real difference to have YOUR generous support in this real and necessary legal fight: https://donorbox.org/mandamusfund
Law and informed consent matters. I lost my mom and dad 11 days apart, likely because they were pressured with informed consent for mRNA non-existent.
Comments
Nothing yet. Say the first thing.
Sign in to join the conversation.