On his first day back in office, President Donald Trump made his priorities clear: The old rules no longer apply.
Among his first actions, he withdrew the United States from the World Health Organization (WHO), cutting ties with the global body responsible for pandemic response, vaccine coordination, and disease surveillance. While the White House justified the decision by citing the WHO’s “mishandling of the COVID-19 pandemic,” public health experts warn that such a move undermines global cooperation and weakens the United States’ ability to respond to future health crises. This decision marks just one example of a broader pattern: Trump’s second-term public health agenda threatens to erode the credibility, capacity, and coordination of the institutions Americans rely on to protect their health. As political interference in science grows, global partnerships and domestic institutions are instead breaking down.
The World Health Organization plays a critical role in tracking disease outbreaks, coordinating emergency responses, and delivering vaccines — all services that depend heavily on U.S. support. The United States, the WHO’s biggest financial contributor, provided approximately $1.2 billion — 15% — of the organization’s budget. Yet, under Trump, this funding will not continue. Indeed, Trump’s decision cuts the U.S. off from the very infrastructure it helped build, weakening not just global health readiness but also the credibility of American leadership.
World Health Organization Director General Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus described the move as “the greatest disruption to global health financing in memory,” adding that it will “of course [be] very painful.” However, without U.S. participation, the U.S is left more exposed: less informed, less prepared, and less involved in a globalized world where viruses cross borders with ease.
The President’s anti-establishment stance extends to domestic public health institutions too. His approach to public health governance targets federal agencies like the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Trump’s proposed 2026 budget drops 40% of NIH’s current funding, from about $47 billion to $27 billion. Nineteen institutes, including those focused on minority health and nursing, are set to be closed or merged. These policy shifts are already taking a toll by making it harder for researchers to keep their labs open and putting vital disease research at risk as funding dries up.
The CDC, too, is facing steep cuts. The White House’s proposed budget aims to reduce the institution’s annual funding from $9.2 billion to $5.2 billion. Over two thousand employees have already been laid off as of early June. Though about 450 staff members have since been reinstated, the agency remains severely understaffed, which limits its ability to track outbreaks and provide timely health guidance. When paired with Trump’s withdrawal from the WHO, it is clear that the U.S. is stepping back from both national preparedness and international cooperation in the public health sector.
In response to mounting political interference in scientific research, the “Stand Up for Science” movement was launched in February 2025 by a group of early-career scientists and graduate students. Their goal is to secure sustained funding in scientific research and push back against misinformation and efforts to sideline evidence-based policy. It began with a rally at the Lincoln Memorial, and has spread to over 30 U.S. cities, drawing thousands of supporters.
Bioinformaticians and public health professionals join these rallies to promote scientific integrity, advocate for funding, and push back against misinformation. Scientists insist that they will keep speaking out regardless of political pressure, but advocacy against the administration’s efforts to defund and discredit public health institutions won’t be enough without substantive action. Lacking adequate funding, even the most dedicated researchers cannot carry out their work.
Still, the scientific community remains committed to shaping the future of biomedical research on the basis of evidence and honesty. Dr. Abraham Flaxman, a global-health metrics researcher who spoke during the rallies, urged his colleagues to take action by reminding them that “nobody is coming to save us. We’re going to have to save ourselves.” In the months since, that call has translated into scientists speaking at rallies and collaborating with universities to raise public awareness and encourage engagement with scientific issues. Instead of waiting on federal agencies to take the lead, the movement has focused on building credibility in local spaces where misinformation has taken root.
At the center of these destructive actions is President Trump, who has aligned public health policy with Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s “Make America Healthy Again” (MAHA) agenda. MAHA taps into a growing frustration with rising rates of chronic illness and declining trust in public health institutions. The movement argues that ultra-processed foods, pharmaceutical dependence, and corporate influence within federal agencies have all contributed to a national health crisis.
Shifting toward cleaner foods, greater individual responsibility, and a rollback of government and corporate control over health policy, the agenda — while controversial — has gained traction among Americans who feel the current system is failing to keep them healthy. Proponents see this agenda as a way to reclaim control over their well-being, seeking policy changes such removing chemical additives from food products and promoting greater transparency regarding scientific research practices.
Critics, however, argue that this approach oversimplifies complex public health challenges and risks undermining essential regulatory protections. While calls for fewer preservatives in foods may resonate with legitimate concerns — especially as ultra-processed foods have been linked to obesity, cancer, and cardiovascular disease — the movement becomes dangerous when it fuels distrust in research and professionals. The MAHA platform privileges personal intuition over expert consensus and casts federal public health institutions as corrupt or beholden to private industry, ultimately fueling conspiracy theorizing more than it promotes critical thinking. For instance, despite overwhelming scientific evidence supporting vaccine safety, HHS secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the nation’s top public health official, continues to promote the debunked claim that vaccines cause autism.
This kind of rhetoric has consequences. In April 2025, Texas experienced its worst measles outbreak in years, with over 750 confirmed cases and several deaths of children, which were tied to low vaccination rates. The nation’s annual total of 1,277 measles cases marks the highest number of vaccine-preventable infections reported in 33 years. Nationwide, vaccination coverage for kindergarteners has fallen below the 95% threshold needed for herd immunity against measles. Public health officials traced the outbreak to communities influenced by anti-vaccine messaging, revealing what happens when political rhetoric fuels mistrust in scientific and public health institutions. Kennedy’s repeated claims linking vaccines to autism — despite overwhelming scientific consensus to the contrary — have helped normalize that mistrust.
That same disregard for evidence-based research also shapes legislation. With the ratification of Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill,” key parts of the Affordable Care Act are being rolled back, making it harder for people to enroll in coverage by scrapping automatic enrollment and bringing back work requirements for Medicaid. The bill also cuts Medicaid by $880 billion to cover trillions of dollars in tax breaks. As a result, low-income families, people with disabilities, and older adults stand to lose the most, with roughly 12 million people at risk of losing their health coverage with this bill.
While framed as cost-saving reforms, these actions risk destabilizing the healthcare system and reversing a decade of progress in expanding access to care. This domestic rollback, paired with the U.S.’ withdrawal from the WHO and deep cuts to scientific research, undermine the very institutions meant to protect public health — both at home and around the world.
Trump’s decision to withdraw from the WHO on day one set the tone for a second term defined by deep skepticism of public health institutions and a willingness to dismantle long-standing norms. This early move foreshadowed an agenda that continues to chip away at the credibility and capacity of the frameworks designed to protect Americans’ health. As scientific research is politicized, global partnerships are strained and access to care becomes more uncertain. Therefore, the question is no longer just about whether our institutions can withstand political pressure, but whether the future of public health can operate outside the bounds of political conflict.
