Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Undermining CDC’s Capacity to Respond to Outbreaks Will Cost Us

Opinion

Undermining CDC’s Capacity to Respond to Outbreaks Will Cost Us

A scientist analyzes a virus sample in a laboratory.

Getty Images, JazzIRT

Ever watched the movie Contagion? Produced in 2011, this thriller tells the story of how a virus, brought to the U.S. by a woman who returns from a Hong Kong business trip, sparks a global pandemic. The film was inspired by the Nipah virus, one of over 200 known zoonotic diseases, meaning illnesses that originate in animals and can spill over to humans.

In the film, actress Kate Winslet plays the role of an Epidemic Intelligence Officer, a specialized scientist deployed on the frontline of a health emergency to track, monitor, and contain disease outbreaks. Her character embodies the kind of experts that the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) abruptly sacked on Valentine’s Day at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (C.D.C.).


Established in 1951, the Epidemic Intelligence Service (EIS) is a globally recognized, two-year epidemiology program that has trained over 4,000 “disease detectives,” who are equipped to respond to a wide range of public health challenges and emergencies. Once trained, these scientists are often hired by state or county health departments to strengthen local health systems in disease surveillance and to respond to public health emergencies. However, it remains unclear whether the “disease detectives” program may ultimately be spared, thanks to a President’s Day uproar from alumni of this globally recognized program managed by the C.D.C. But, regardless of which program is gutted, experts contend that the damage to global health security is already done.

“One of the main functions of CDC is international. For example, during the 2014 West Africa Ebola outbreak, this agency was instrumental in containing Ebola in Nigeria,” shared Dr. Dennis Carroll, chair of the Global Virome Project and former director of the USAID’s Pandemic Influenza and other Emerging Threats Unit.

“Now that we have eliminated our foreign assistance and are prohibiting CDC from speaking and collaborating with WHO, our ability to control these events at their point of origin will be immensely compromised. Six months out, we're going to start seeing the consequences of not having a robust infrastructure, resources in place, and global coordination.”

Another critical program for global health security that saw at least 20 layoffs on Valentine’s Day was the Laboratory Leadership Service (LLS), a sister initiative to EIS, aimed at building the capacity of public health laboratory research. People trained through this program, launched in 2015, support rapid response to disasters and investigate emerging health threats. They help to detect harmful fungal infections, improve diagnostics and therapeutics for rabies, cholera and HIV (to name just a few), and re-establish lab operations after a hurricane or a tornado.

“Even though this program does not have the legacy of EIS, the competencies it builds are especially important in the early phases of an outbreak investigation when laboratories must work with speed and accuracy,” said Carroll. “If nothing else, during COVID-19, we witnessed how inadequate laboratory capabilities can put us behind the curve in terms of response.”

Under the premise of saving U.S. taxpayer’s dollars, Americans may be deprived of scientists trained to protect them against the spread of infectious diseases and food-borne illnesses, at a time when the country is facing multiple public health threats. Seasonal influenza is at an all-time high in America, with up to 23 million hospital visits for the flu and at least 370,000 hospitalizations, according to the CDC.

Americans are also facing outbreaks of Bird flu, tuberculosis, and measles. The CDC declared that the measles was eliminated in the U.S. in 2000, thanks in part to an effective vaccine that became available in 1963. In 2024, 33 states reported 286 measles cases—most of them among unvaccinated people—and Texas is currently experiencing one of the worst measles outbreaks in the 21st century in America. Public health cannot be taken for granted. It is a long game that requires steady investments.

“Disrupting operations without a plan or vision on such a large scale inevitably introduces inefficiencies in places where speed protects the public’s health,” said Dr. Katelyn Jetelina, editor of Your Local Epidemiologist newsletter on Substack. “It often takes time to see the on-the-ground impact of high-level policy changes.” Though not policy changes per se, these layoffs are a sledgehammer to evidence-based public health initiatives.

Dr. Omer Awan, a physician and Forbes contributor, warns that firing frontline workers will cripple disease surveillance and endanger global health. Rapid response to emerging diseases depends on a well-trained workforce but eliminating specialists at the CDC weakens our ability to deploy investigators to hotspots and be ready for future pandemics. Fewer scientists dedicated to gathering and analyzing scientific data will hinder disease tracking and efforts to combat health disinformation.

Not to mention the issue of bioterrorism, or the intentional release of biological agents to cause harm to people, livestock, or crops. In 2001, letters with powdered anthrax spores were mailed in the United States, causing 22 infections and five deaths, according to the CDC. EIS officers were the foot soldiers of the government response in 2001. With increasing evidence that artificial intelligence may facilitate the accessibility of biological weapons, who will be our first responders in case of a bioterror attack?

Carroll says that most global health success stories reflect U.S. leadership and that without a robust infrastructure in place, and the resources to sustain it, we are in for a major wake-up call. “Be prepared for a virus that was on the cusp of eradication, like polio, to make a resurgence,” he added. “Forget about new emerging diseases. Think about those that are highly infectious and are making a comeback. I am also talking about the emerging threat posed by the highly pathogenic H5N1 Avian flu virus. If that breaks through, COVID-19 will look like a walk in the park. These actions are not about putting America first, they only ensure America will be last.”

Beatrice Spadacini is a freelance journalist for the Fulcrum. Spadacini writes about social justice and public health.


Read More

An empty grocery cart in a market.

NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani proposes five city-run grocery stores. See the arguments for and against, from food deserts to bodega concerns and the $70M cost.

Getty Images, Kwangmoozaa

Government-Owned Grocery Stores: Accessible Nutrition or Government Overreach?

Issue Introduction

Over the past few years, affordability has become the most central issue affecting Americans and the quality of life in the United States. The prices of groceries and basic necessities have risen 25-30% since the COVID-19 pandemic and are projected to rise another 3.2% in 2026. At the same time, the exodus of grocery chains from rural and low-income areas has scattered food deserts throughout individual states. Recent mass closures include Grocery Outlet’s shuttering of 36 stores and continued shut-downs of many Albertsons locations. These factors have led politicians to make affordability a major campaign issue.

During his progressive campaign for mayor of New York City, Zohran Mamdani raised the idea of opening grocery stores owned and operated by the city government to provide New Yorkers with affordable groceries. In his April 2026 public address that marked his first 100 days in office, Mayor Mamdani announced plans for the first of five city-run grocery stores. Mamdani’s proposed initiative will use $70 million in capital funding to build five city-owned municipal stores–one in each borough–and place them under control of the New York City Economic Development Corporation (NYCEDC). NYCEDC will then select third-party operating staff in accordance with city standards for affordability and proper labor practices. Public opinion following the announcement continues to be divided between uproar and support.

Keep ReadingShow less
​U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth

U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth testifies during a Senate Committee on Appropriations hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., on July 21, 2026. Hegseth is crafting a strong and masculine identity for his audience as he reportedly contemplates a presidential run.

(Alex Wroblewski/AFP/Getty Images/TNS)

Politicians Can’t Just ’Give the People What They Want’

For reasons that will baffle my many detractors, I am often asked for advice about being an opinion journalist. One of my standard responses is: You have to be willing to disappoint your biggest fans.

What I mean is that if you start to see your job as telling fans what they want to hear, you risk becoming an entertainer rather than a thinker, and eventually you become a caricature. I’ve seen it happen numerous times. Patrick Buchanan was a brilliant columnist and a serious person. But over the course of his career, he listened too much to the people who said, “Go Pat, go!” and too little to friends who said, “I think that’s taking it too far.”

Keep ReadingShow less
White marble exterior of the United States Capitol, often called the Capitol Building, is the home of the United States Congress and the seat of the legislative branch of the U.S. federal government

Congress approval is at a record-low 10%. Moderation and consensus-building, not partisan theatrics, are how Washington gets problems solved.

Richard Sharrocks / Getty Images

Reclaiming the Politics of the Possible

Washington is stuck in a cycle of performative conflict. The incentives seem to reward outrage, not outcomes that last; purity tests, not problem‑solving. So it’s no surprise that after three shutdowns in less than a year, public approval of Congress collapsed to just 10 percent this spring. (Gallup, April 2026.) But the country we live in — where many middle-income families report persistent financial strain and businesses are navigating unprecedented technological upheaval — cannot be governed by theatrics. Breaking this cycle requires moderation, consensus‑building, and a cooperative approach to governance.

This is not a call for centrism as an ideology. Instead, this is a call for transformative leaders to embrace moderation as their governing strategy, recognizing that in a pluralistic country of nearly 350 million people durable solutions require broad and stable alliances. Ultimately, this is a call for the 240 million of us who are eligible to vote in November to elect consensus-builders instead of bomb-throwers, and healers instead of arsonists.

Keep ReadingShow less
Adult man holds a microphone while asking a question during a town hall meeting.

Congress ignored 90% of public support for background checks. Learn how citizen assemblies and sortition helped Ireland break gridlock and could work in the US.

SDI Productions/Getty Images

Consensus Without Power: How Sortition Could Break America's Legislative Gridlock

In April 2013, four months after the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting killed twenty children, the US Senate voted on the Manchin-Toomey Act to expand background checks and to include gun-show and internet sales of firearms. Roughly nine in ten Americans, including a majority of gun owners, supported the bill—a figure that has held steady across more than a decade of polling. It fell short of the 60-vote threshold by six votes. This was not an outlier. On complex issues, representatives often fail to translate public consensus into reality. Research shows that legislators consistently vote in line with donor and interest group preferences over constituent opinion. Before the vote, the National Rifle Association (NRA) warned every senator it would “rate” their vote on its annual rating system, and a low NRA rating could cost senators their next primary. Consequently, the bill died 54-46, and the majority of Americans watched, powerless, as their consensus was overridden by self-interested representatives.

Liberal democracies need a method to bypass electoral incentives that run counter to public opinion. One already exists: Ireland faced the same stalemate on complex issues before it instituted a process called sortition. The beauty of sortition lies in its removal of the primary pressure that misaligns representatives’ interests from public interest: reelection. Much like jury duty, citizens are randomly drawn from the population. An independent body then stratifies the pool, so the final group mirrors the country by age, gender, geography, and income. The group meets over weeks or months, hearing from experts and the public, as well as debating frequently. At the end, it issues a recommendation that parliament may then put to a referendum or pass into law.

Keep ReadingShow less