Public health does not fail loudly. It fails in the space between detection and response, in the days when an outbreak might have been contained but was not, when surveillance data went unexamined or expertise had already been laid off. The cuts now tearing through the CDC ensure that the next emergency will arrive to a thinner, slower, and less coordinated system. By the time the damage becomes visible to the public, the opportunity to prevent it will already have passed
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, once the world’s gold standard for disease surveillance and outbreak response, now confronts an unprecedented crisis that threatens not only its institutional survival but the broader architecture of global health security built over decades of American leadership.
The turmoil extends far beyond budget spreadsheets. After a year marked by chaotic layoffs, leadership upheaval, and a flood of misinformation under Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the agency has lost approximately 4,300 employees, representing roughly 33 percent of its workforce since January 2025.
The proposed fiscal year 2026 budget would slash CDC funding by 53 percent, from $9.3 billion to $4.3 billion. The Global Health Center, funded at $693 million in fiscal 2025, would be eliminated entirely.
Dr. Tom Frieden, who led the CDC from 2009 to 2017, warns in stark terms that the future of the agency’s global health work is “very much in the balance.” Writing in STAT News, Frieden emphasizes that these cuts “restrict our ability to stop the leading killers of Americans” and warns that “cuts to CDC and other global work will cost lives, damage America’s reputation, and weaken our economy.”
The chaos has left the agency barely recognizable to those who know it best. Dr. Demetre Daskalakis, who resigned in August 2025 as a top vaccine official at CDC, described the agency to NPR using a haunting metaphor: “I keep calling CDC, like, a zombie ’cause it’s a zombie.” The first rounds of cuts left gaps throughout the organization that he characterized as resembling “a map that’s been eaten by moths because there’s just random holes.”
The Institutional Memory Walking Out the Door
The scale of disruption becomes clear when examining who has been targeted. Among those fired during the October 2025 round of layoffs were the entire staff of the CDC’s Washington office, which for decades had served as a liaison with Congress, and all personnel supporting the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, a journal that has published surveillance data on the nation’s health for more than a century. The Office on Smoking and Health faced elimination of its entire scientific staff, despite tobacco being the leading cause of preventable death in the United States.
The October cutbacks took place during a government shutdown, with termination emails arriving after 9 p.m. on a holiday weekend. Approximately 1,300 CDC employees initially received reduction in force notices, though about 700 were subsequently rescinded the following day.
When the confusion cleared, around 600 permanent positions had been eliminated. Aryn Melton Backus, a health communications specialist who received termination notices in three separate rounds throughout 2025, told reporters that “we have no idea why certain programs were eliminated and others were saved. At this point, it seems like the chaos and lack of transparency is the point.”
The layoffs have decimated specific expertise crucial for emergency response. The staff supporting the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices were laid off in October 2025, forcing cancellation of the committee’s scheduled meeting. With 60 percent of the CDC workforce holding master’s degrees or doctorates, the agency is systematically losing the scientific expertise that made it a global powerhouse.
Dr. Kevin De Cock, the inaugural director of CDC’s Global Health Center who deployed multiple times to West Africa during the 2014-2016 Ebola outbreak as CDC team lead in Liberia, poses a question that cuts to the heart of current concerns. Reflecting on that response, which involved deploying approximately 1,450 CDC responders to Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone, De Cock asks whether the agency could mount such an effort today. His answer: “I’m not sure we could, because we’re not organized. We’ve lost people.”
That epidemic response represented the CDC at its finest. The agency played what De Cock describes as an “enormous role” in containing an outbreak that killed more than 11,000 people. The rapid response to Ebola’s introduction into Nigeria, where CDC had an established presence, contrasted dramatically with the initial response in Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone, where the agency had little operational presence. The crisis underscored the importance of maintaining permanent overseas capacity, yet current cuts are dismantling precisely that infrastructure.
The Human Cost of Policy Decisions
The consequences of institutional collapse extend directly into the lives of millions. The President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, which has saved 26 million lives since 2003 and currently supports antiretroviral therapy for 20.6 million people annually, faces a 30 percent reduction in the proposed budget. The President’s Malaria Initiative would see cuts approaching 45 percent.
Research published in The Lancet HIV projects that discontinuing PEPFAR support could cause 4.43 million to 10.75 million additional HIV infections and up to 2.93 million HIV deaths between 2025 and 2030. The 90-day funding freeze imposed in January 2025 alone is estimated to have resulted in over 100,000 HIV-related deaths within one year.
The proposed budget zeros out U.S. funding for Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, which receives approximately $300 million annually, and eliminates $1.7 billion for the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. Programs addressing global tuberculosis, immunizations including polio, and parasitic diseases would lose all federal support.
These cuts arrive as the global humanitarian system faces its most severe strain in modern history. The World Food Programme reports that 318 million people face acute food insecurity in 2026, more than double the 2019 figure.
Two confirmed famines are simultaneously underway in Gaza and Sudan, marking the first time this century that multiple famines have occurred at once. With humanitarian aid budgets shrinking dramatically, WFP can assist only 110 million of those facing crisis-level hunger, requiring an estimated $13 billion when current funding forecasts indicate the organization may receive only half that amount.
Beth Bechdol, deputy director-general at the Food and Agriculture Organization, argues that humanitarian aid alone cannot keep pace with contemporary food crises. The challenge requires treating agriculture as a front-line investment in stability and recovery, yet only 5 percent of humanitarian food-sector funding supports agricultural livelihoods.
The Domestic Ripple Effect
The impact of CDC cuts extends directly into American communities in ways that belie claims of fiscal responsibility. Research from George Washington University estimates that the proposed budget reductions would eliminate approximately 42,000 jobs in the US, with one-third of those losses occurring outside public health sectors.
State and local tax revenues would fall by more than $240 million. The economic analysis reveals that for every dollar the federal government saves through CDC budget cuts, state and local economies lose $1.40. The loss to state economies totals $5.4 billion in gross domestic product, approximately 40 percent greater than federal savings.
The cuts hit hardest where they matter most. Roughly 80 percent of CDC’s US budget flows to states, localities, tribes, healthcare systems, and community partners. Since federal funding accounts for approximately half of state and local health department budgets, the proposed cuts represent a direct assault on America’s public health infrastructure.
Dr. J. Nadine Gracia, president and CEO of Trust for America’s Health, emphasizes that “state and local health departments, which are on the frontlines of protecting the health of their residents rely on the federal government, particularly CDC, for public health funding, expertise, and technical assistance. With the loss of funding, workforce, and programs, our country will be less prepared for future health emergencies, Americans’ health will suffer, and healthcare costs will rise.”
Public health experts warn about the practical implications. Dr. John Brooks, a retired infectious disease specialist who served as Chief Medical Officer for CDC’s Division of HIV Prevention, stated that “many experts, including myself, are concerned that we are no longer well-prepared for the next big outbreak or disaster because of the Trump administration’s continued erosion of our nation’s ability to respond to public health emergencies.”
When state and local health departments face problems such as outbreaks of food poisoning or hospital infections, they have traditionally reached out to CDC for help. That help might involve deploying experts to assist with investigations or connecting local officials with specialists who possess world-class expertise on specific infections or exposures. With staff cuts hollowing out the agency’s capacity, those connections are being severed. As one state health official noted, there’s increasingly “nobody to answer the phone” when urgent assistance is needed.
The WHO Withdrawal Compounds the Crisis
The Trump administration’s decision to withdraw from the World Health Organization and the UN magnifies these concerns exponentially. As the organization’s largest contributor, the United States provided $1.284 billion during the 2022-2023 biennium, representing 22 percent of mandatory contributions during 2024-2025. The administration has also prohibited CDC employees from co-authoring papers with WHO staff, further severing scientific collaboration.
Dr. Jesse Bump, a lecturer on global health policy at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health and executive director of the Takemi Program in International Health, warns that withdrawal will put the country and world at heightened risk of public health crises. In an interview with Verywell Health, Bump explained that “WHO is supposed to coordinate international and global disease responses, so we won’t be a part of that. We won’t be part of the information sharing network or various coordination efforts.”
In the US, the implications are immediate and severe. Bump notes that “if the U.S. is no longer receiving news from WHO or its member states, that would mean we’re more vulnerable to importing diseases spreading elsewhere. With declining immunization against childhood diseases, it’s more likely we would have outbreaks of polio, measles, and the like.”
Dr. Judd Walson, speaking to Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, emphasizes the surveillance implications through a hypothetical scenario. When a new disease emerges in a small country in Asia, data showing spikes in fever and respiratory illness would trigger alerts through the WHO system, providing diagnostic advice and support.
Without U.S. participation in that system, the coordination mechanism fractures. “Do we really want a system in which whether or not we like you and you like us determines our ability to collaborate on something of global importance like a potential pandemic?” Walson asks.
Thomas Bollyky, director of the global health program at the Council on Foreign Relations, described the executive order as “an enormous mistake.” He emphasizes that “the WHO is not a perfect institution, but it plays an irreplaceable role in global outbreak response and, by withdrawing this action, reduces the ability of the United States to positively influence that response to outbreak. It makes Americans less safe.”
Howard Catton, CEO of the International Council of Nurses, said in a Nursing Times interview that “when it comes to global health challenges or threats, no nation is an island. To put it more simply: viruses don’t stop at national borders to show their passport.”
The withdrawal places particular strain on the world’s poorest regions. Dr. Lindsey Locks, a Boston University global health nutrition epidemiologist, wrote that the decisions to withdraw from WHO and freeze foreign assistance mean that “lives will be lost. Livelihoods will be destroyed in the U.S. and abroad. Critical expertise, infrastructure, and data needed to combat food insecurity and malnutrition will be lost.”
The Geopolitical Vacuum
The United States built its global health leadership through sustained bipartisan commitment spanning multiple administrations. Programs like PEPFAR demonstrated that Republican and Democratic presidents alike could support large-scale international health initiatives. The current withdrawal represents a stark departure from that legacy.
Other nations are already positioning themselves to fill the vacuum. China’s voluntary WHO contribution of approximately $42 million pales in comparison to America’s historic funding levels, but Beijing has clearly signaled its intention to expand influence within global health institutions. The question is not whether someone will fill the leadership void, but whether the resulting system will prove as effective or as aligned with American interests.
Aleksandra Jakubowski, an assistant professor in health sciences and economics at Northeastern University, explained that U.S. contributions create significant soft power. “It creates a lot of goodwill toward the U.S. because we are seen as a benevolent nation that is sharing our wealth with those less fortunate in order to quite literally save lives. It helps us when it comes to negotiating treaties or international deals because other countries really respect us and value us.”
The withdrawal could particularly affect U.S. influence in regions where experts already worry about growing Chinese influence. Without the soft power generated by global health leadership, America’s ability to shape international agreements and maintain strategic relationships diminishes substantially.
Dr. Perry Halkitis, dean of the Rutgers School of Public Health, told ABC News that he thinks “about the WHO as a network of countries around the world that inform and protect each other when health issues are emerging, whether they’re health issues entering into the United States, or whether the health issue is going outside the United States. And so, it is disadvantageous for people, and is disadvantageous for the United States, [who need] access to relevant, timely, important information.”
Scientific Progress Amid Institutional Decay
Against this backdrop of institutional collapse, scientists continue working on solutions to global challenges. Researchers at the International Potato Center, working with Indigenous Andean communities, have developed a potato variety resistant to late blight—the disease responsible for the Irish potato famine. The CIP-Asiryq potato requires fewer fungicide applications and cooks faster than existing varieties, offering hope for the 1.3 billion people worldwide who depend on potatoes for sustenance.
Kaveh Zahedi, director of the office of climate change, biodiversity, and environment at FAO, emphasizes the urgency: Climate change “is not a distant threat—it’s happening now. If we fail to act, the outlook is stark: in some regions, rain-fed agriculture could become impossible; in others, land will no longer be suitable for food production.”
Such innovations demonstrate that climate adaptation remains possible, even as the institutional support for scaling these solutions erodes. The question facing the global community is whether scientific breakthroughs can overcome the loss of coordinating mechanisms and funding streams that historically helped translate discoveries into widespread implementation.
The Transparency Crisis
The dismantling of CDC’s communications capacity raises profound questions about public access to health information. The layoffs of the entire Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report staff eliminate a publication that has served as America’s health surveillance journal since 1878. Dr. Debra Houry, who served as CDC’s chief medical officer under the Biden administration, noted that “it’s not radically transparent if the agency can’t communicate.”
The cuts to communications specialists come as Secretary Kennedy promotes what he calls “radical transparency” and “gold-standard science.” Yet the practical effect has been to eliminate the very staff members who explain CDC guidance to the public and respond to media inquiries. In their absence, misinformation fills the vacuum. As Frieden wrote, “Americans deserve the unvarnished truth from their public health agencies. Without these specialists, misinformation will fill the vacuum, undermining everyday health and response to crises ranging from infectious disease outbreaks to natural disasters.”
The timing could hardly be worse. The United States enters winter 2025-2026 with significantly reduced capacity to monitor respiratory virus season—a period when infections such as RSV, influenza, and COVID-19 cause surges in hospitalizations and deaths. With fewer experts tracking severity and geographic spread, the nation faces these threats with diminished situational awareness.
The collapse affects COVID-19 surveillance specifically. Wastewater monitoring data, once updated regularly, has not been refreshed since September 25, 2025. As long COVID becomes one of the most common chronic conditions in children, the loss of surveillance infrastructure leaves the nation flying blind regarding a continuing public health threat.
What Comes Next
Former Secretary of State Colin Powell famously observed that if America is seen as the country that cares, that makes a difference. Health diplomacy has provided an entry point for engagement with nations across the political spectrum, including adversaries. When the United States steps back, it loses not just the capacity to respond to disease outbreaks before they reach American shores, but also the soft power that comes from being seen as a force for good in the world.
The broader question extends beyond budgets and organizational charts to the fundamental nature of American leadership in an interconnected world. The Trump administration characterizes its approach as eliminating unnecessary programs and refocusing on core functions. HHS spokesman Andrew Nixon stated that “HHS is following the Administration’s guidance and taking action to support the President’s broader efforts to restructure and streamline the federal government.”
Critics argue it represents an abandonment of the postwar international system that has, for all its flaws, helped avert countless crises and saved millions of lives. Bijan Farnoudi, former spokesperson to U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, frames the moment starkly: The U.S. withdrawal from 66 international organizations signals that the idea of power answering to rules and cooperation protecting the vulnerable is on life support.
“There’s a concerted effort to disassemble the CDC,” Dr. Demetre Daskalakis, one of the officials who resigned from, told Prism. Daskalakis most recently served as director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases at the CDC. “The current regime is blocking science, and their political will is in destroying public health rather than building it.”
The cyclical nature of public health funding exacerbates the problem. As public health experts note, funding surges during crises like Ebola, Zika, and COVID-19, but dwindles once the immediate threat subsides. This inconsistent investment leaves countries vulnerable when the next outbreak inevitably occurs. The current cuts ensure that when that moment arrives, America will be less prepared than at any point in recent memory.
As 2026 unfolds, the world watches to see whether American retreat from global health leadership represents a temporary policy shift or a more fundamental reordering of international priorities. The answer will be written not in diplomatic cables or budget documents, but in lives saved or lost, diseases contained or spread, and in whether the next pandemic finds the world prepared or fractured when it arrives.
The institutional knowledge walking out of CDC headquarters in Atlanta cannot easily be replaced. The relationships built over decades with health ministries around the world, the trust earned through countless outbreak responses, and the expertise accumulated through generations of epidemiologists took lifetimes to build. Now, they can disappear in months.
Get the latest news and insights that are shaping the world. Subscribe to Impact Newswire to stay informed and be part of the global conversation.
Got a story to share? Pitch it to us at info@impactnews-wire.com and reach the right audience worldwide
Discover more from Impact Newswire
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
