In March, the world marked the second anniversary of Covid-19 being declared a global pandemic. The past two years have included a series of tumultuous social and political events that have contributed to the polarization and the continued spread of misinformation, which has kept the nation – and the world – from fully recovering.
Because the battle against Covid is not just a health care issue, some experts believe the path out of the pandemic requires breaking down partisan barriers and halting the spread of misinformation.
Politicization of science
The United States, despite only making up 4 percent of the global population, has been the site of 25 percent of Covid-19 cases throughout the pandemic. This disproportionate rate of infections can be attributed to various factors, but one of the primary causes arises from the politicization of related science, both early in the pandemic and in the ensuing months.
Vaccines have been the center of polarizing debates for years, despite mounting empirical evidence supporting their effectiveness. This, along with suspicions surrounding mask mandates and even the reality of the pandemic, all play into a more extensive trend of denying the merits of scientific findings.
So how did these discrepancies come about, and how did they grow to the deadly levels we have seen in the past few years?
To begin, stressful situations like a pandemic may lead to predispositions towards denial, rationalism and confirmation bias as a defense mechanism against confronting the devastating realities that exist in the moment.
“Denial is a way for people to defend themselves against anxiety,” Mark Whitmore, an associate professor at Kent State University who has studied the spread of disinformation, explained in an interview with CNN. One defense mechanism “is simply to deny whatever the threatening source is exists. In this case, you would simply say, ‘Well the epidemic is a hoax. It doesn't really exist.’”
Under such conditions, public opinion is susceptible to polarized messaging, according to Nina Ashford, former federal government director and clinical assistant professor at the Tufts University School of Medicine.
“We have seen more egregious forms of politicization [of science] happen over the past two years of the pandemic,” she said. “This undermining of the scientific process has trickled down into the public’s trust of vaccines, of public health in general, of medicine … and these tend to be along partisan lines.”
At the beginning of the U.S. outbreak in early 2020, President Donald Trump downplayed the severity of the disease, with many Republican leaders quickly following his lead. Even now that the disproportionate vulnerability of unvaccinated populations has been demonstrated, some media outlets have continued to spread misinformation about preventative measures and the foundational science behind the implementation of pandemic policies. In addition to seeding general mistrust in government, Ashford states, “one of the biggest public health threats coming out of this pandemic is disinformation and misinformation.”
Even with the dramatic shift in policy since Joe Biden became president, “there has been so much damage done in the years before that a lot of this mistrust and disinformation which was sown from the highest levels of government has carried through … even to where people are questioning the credibility of the CDC,” she said.
Individuals and communities across the United States are feeling the effects of these partisan divides: Covid-19 death tolls in red states soared in comparison to their blue counterparts after vaccines were made available, as many Republicans remained reluctant to get the shots. While the death rate has been subsiding, the virus still poses a particularly dangerous risk to vulnerable populations, including low-income individuals, multi-family households, essential workers and those who are immunocompromised.
Solutions require common ground
Experts believe continued efforts to mitigate the impacts of Covid-19 must involve multifaceted approaches, focusing on common goals of preserving the overall wellbeing and social welfare of our families, friends and communities.
“At baseline, Republicans and Democrats tend to want the same outcomes, we just have very different processes of getting there. … At the end of the day, people want to raise their families and live good lives in safe environments,” said Ashford, who argues that bipartisan approaches to public health issues will ultimately be the “best path forward for our democracy.”
In order to combat the spread of misinformation, Ashford stressed the urgency of “having conversations as a nation about how we consume information, how we critically think and analyze this information.”
Ultimately, “the beauty of our democracy is that we did have these two differing views and we know that diversity of thought is a good thing. No one person or group holds the answer, so I would love to see us as a nation get to where we can view our differences as strengths and figure out what that middle ground looks like.”
U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio speaks with U.S. President Donald Trump during a Cabinet meeting in the Cabinet Room of the White House on May 27, 2026 in Washington, D.C. Trump met with his Cabinet days after saying a peace deal with Iran was“ largely negotiated” amid expectations around the re-opening the Strait of Hormuz.
The worst deal in the history of deals
As a former Republican, sometimes it’s fun to look back on the things we — I was part of a “we” at one time — criticized Democrats for, and not all that long ago.
Remember, if you will, when Republicans condemned former President Bill Clinton for pardoning his brother and his corrupt donor friend Marc Rich?
Or, remember when Republicans wagged their fingers at former President Barack Obama’s golf outings? Or his executive orders? Or his Syrian “red line”?
Or all the times Republicans went after former President Joe Biden’s gaffes?
While those criticisms may have been justified at the time, they look patently ridiculous next to our current president’s cartoonish and downright dangerous offenses.
Offenses like pardoning Jan. 6 insurrectionists — nearly 100 of whom have gone on to be arrested for, charged with, or convicted of crimes separate from the events of that day.
Or wreaking havoc on the global economy by instituting reckless tariffs on friends, neighbors, and enemies alike?
Or taking a proverbial sledge hammer to countless government agencies that have put every American in danger, whether on airplanes, in hospitals, at job sites, or in natural disasters.
That’s just a few, but nothing looks worse next to his predecessors than Donald Trump’s supposed Iran deal, at least as it’s outlined in the Memorandum of Understanding, the details of which Trump was loath to share.
And for good reason — they are shockingly bad and humiliating for the U.S.
I remember Obama’s Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action or JCPOA from 2015 very well. I, along with many Republicans as well as a cadre of foreign policy experts, criticized that deal for its obvious and problematic concessions to a very bad actor who we’ve long known could not be trusted. But trust was what we gave the Iranian regime, as well as sudden access to a boatload of cash — $100 billion, to be exact.
All of Obama’s provisions were temporary, which would allow Iran to restart enriching uranium upon their sunset; the deal didn’t address Iran’s ballistic missiles, or its funding of terrorist proxies like Hezbollah and Hamas; the supposed “anytime, anywhere” inspections came with a 24-day delay, if Iran so chose, giving them ample time to hide any suspect materials; and it didn’t require any congressional authority.
In short, I’d argue it wasn’t a great deal. But as bad as it was, it looks like the Magna Carta next to Trump’s.
Trump’s deal would give Iran immediate sanction relief and access to $300 billion, presumably to use to fund terror proxies; it doesn’t secure any upfront limits on uranium enrichment or missile development; it allows Iran to charge for safe passage through the Strait of Hormuz in the future; and it calls for Israel to stop its attacks on Hezbollah, another win for Iran.
Neither Americans nor the Middle East are safer than we were 100-plus days ago when Trump decided to pursue this folly. And in fact, our economy is weaker for it. But Iran is unquestionably stronger and more emboldened.
They’ve seen Trump’s weakness, unseriousness, and frighteningly limited appreciation for history. They’ve seen him retreat on most of his core threats to the regime, from bombing their cultural sites to ending a civilization overnight. And they’ve taken notice as he’s abandoned the promises that were supposedly central to his justification for war in the first place — regime change, liberating the Iranian people, and removing Iran’s nuclear materials.
What a waste of blood and treasure, not to mention American might and power, only so that our enemies can watch us limp desperately toward a conclusion that’s being described — by the right — as “unthinkable,” “appeasement,” and “the worst foreign policy blunder in decades.”
S.E. Cupp is the host of "S.E. Cupp Unfiltered" on CNN.