Pfizer accused of delaying vaccine results to sway 2020 election

Internal documents reveal Pfizer could have released vaccine results before the 2020 election—but didn’t.

In the final months of the 2020 US election, Donald Trump was trailing in the polls and banking on the announcement of a Covid-19 vaccine to boost public confidence and revive his re-election campaign.

Trump had promised that a vaccine could arrive “sooner than the end of the year… maybe even sooner than the November 3 election.”

The effort, known as “Operation Warp Speed,” became one of his administration’s flagship initiatives.

But the announcement didn’t arrive in time.

Pfizer went public on 9 November—six days after the election was called for Joe Biden—reporting that its vaccine was more than 90% effective.

Trump was furious.

“Pfizer and the others would only announce a vaccine after the election because they didn’t have the courage to do it before [the election],” he wrote on X, implying the company had delayed the data for political reasons.

Now, the timing of that announcement is under congressional investigation.Did Pfizer deliberately hold back its trial results to influence the election?

That’s the question at the heart of a federal probe led by House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan.

On 15 May 2025, Jordan wrote to Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla, demanding internal documents and communications related to the company’s decision-making.

The request followed testimony from pharmaceutical rival GSK, where former Pfizer executive Dr Philip Dormitzer now works.

Dormitzer allegedly told colleagues at GSK that, during his time at Pfizer, senior researchers had made a calculated decision to “deliberately slow down clinical testing so that it would not be complete prior to the results of the presidential election that year.”

Dr Philip Dormitzer, former Pfizer exec under investigation

After Trump’s re-election in 2024, Dormitzer reportedly became “visibly upset” and requested a transfer to Canada, saying he feared being investigated by the new administration over his role in delaying the vaccine data, GSK told the committee.

When asked why, Dormitzer allegedly said, “Let’s just say it wasn’t a coincidence, the timing of the vaccine.”

Dormitzer’s words are only the beginning. The strongest evidence lies in Pfizer’s own internal records, which reveal when the company reached key trial milestones—and how it chose not to act.

Pfizer had the data—but didn’t act

Thousands of pages of internal Pfizer documents—trial protocols, safety reports, and company emails—were released between 2022 and 2023 after a judge denied the FDA’s request to keep them sealed for 75 years.

Independent researcher Dr Jeyanthi Kunadhasan examined the files and said the documents show Pfizer had every opportunity to release top line results of the vaccine trial before the election.

Dr Jeyanthi Kunadhasan, Independent researcher

“Under Pfizer’s original trial plan, they were supposed to run an interim analysis when 32 people in the study tested positive for Covid,” said Dr Kunadhasan. “That number was reached, but they didn’t do the analysis. They gave only vague ‘operational reasons’ for the delay, and to this day, we don’t know what those reasons were.”

Then, just days before the election, Pfizer quietly changed the protocol. On 29 October 2020, it increased the threshold for analysis from 32 to 62 cases.

“But when I looked at the records, Pfizer had already passed 63 cases back on 22 October—more than a week earlier,” said Dr Kunadhasan. “So even under the revised plan, they had the data in time. The analysis could have been done and shared with the public before election day.”

“Instead, they waited until 8 November to run the numbers, and announced the results the next day,” she said. “This certainly wasn’t a procedural delay—it looks very much like a strategic decision.”

While an FDA rule issued on 16 October required vaccine makers to collect two months of safety data before applying for Emergency Use Authorisation (EUA), it did not prevent them from releasing interim efficacy results publicly.

In any case, the delayed results likely would have made little difference to public health. The trial did not assess if the vaccine prevented transmission, nor did it show reduced mortality.

A political move, not a scientific one

In his letter to Pfizer, Congressman Jordan wrote that the evidence suggests “Dormitzer and other senior Pfizer executives conspired to withhold public health information to influence the 2020 presidential election.”

Pfizer maintains that the timing of its vaccine announcement was based purely on scientific considerations. “Theories to the contrary are simply untrue,” the company said.

Dormitzer has also denied delaying the results, telling Reuters that he and his colleagues did everything to get the vaccine authorised “at the very first possible moment.”

But in light of the timeline, Pfizer’s internal documents, and testimony now on the public record, Trump’s suspicion that Pfizer delayed announcing its vaccine data until after the election may have been justified.

The investigation now centres on a single question: did Pfizer deliberately withhold information that could have influenced the outcome of the 2020 election?

Pfizer has until 29 May to hand over internal records, including communications with the FDA, CDC, and the Department of Health and Human Services.

Science is supposed to be apolitical. But when the timing of medical data aligns with electoral interests, it stops being science—and becomes strategy.

---