Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Bird Flu and the Battle Against Emerging Diseases

Bird Flu and the Battle Against Emerging Diseases

A test tube with a blood test for h5n1 avian influenza. The concept of an avian flu pandemic. Checking the chicken for diseases.

Getty Images//Stock Photo

The first human death from bird flu in the United States occurred on January 6 in a Louisiana hospital, less than three weeks before the second Donald Trump administration’s inauguration. Bird flu, also known as Avian influenza or H5N1, is a disease that has been on the watch list of scientists and epidemiologists for its potential to become a serious threat to humans.

COVID-19’s chaotic handling during Trump’s first term serves as a stark reminder of the stakes. According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and Prevention, last year, 66 confirmed human cases of H5N1 bird flu were reported in the United States. That is a significant number when you consider that only one case was recorded in the two previous years.


Bird flu was first detected in domestic birds in 1996 in Southern China and has since spread to wild birds, mammals, and humans worldwide, with a fatality rate reaching 50% in some cases. In the U.S., cases have been mostly mild, affecting primarily poultry and dairy workers, until this recent death in Louisiana.

In the spring of last year, bird flu showed up in cows. When a pathogen—any organism that causes a disease—jumps species, scientists get nervous because its genetic makeup can reconfigure and become more transmissible or lethal. The fact that humans are now being infected is a red flag. Though human-to-human transmission of H5N1 has not yet happened, it does not mean it can’t.

“That’s our concern — the more shots on goal that we give the virus, the greater chance of there being a mutation of some sort that precipitates a much larger situation,” said Dr. Nirav D. Shah, principal deputy director of the CDC. “But we’re also equally interested in the scientific finding that thus far, in the current outbreak, cases have been milder than what we’ve seen historically.”

Since the health of animals is directly linked to that of humans, the federal government took swift action. In a joint op-ed in USA Today, Xavier Becerra, secretary of Health and Human Services, and Tom Vilsack, secretary of Agriculture, said, “As heads of the federal departments responsible for human health and animal health, we quickly stood up a coordinated response organized around four key priorities: monitoring and stopping transmission, protecting workers and the public, keeping animals healthy and ensuring the safety of our food supply.” Drinking raw milk, for instance, is especially risky now.

The key question is whether the new administration has the political will to prioritize Americans' health. Trump’s nominee to lead Health and Human Services, Robert Kennedy Jr., is a vocal vaccine skeptic critical of federal mandates during the COVID-19 pandemic. Similarly, Dr. Dave Weldon, the nominee for CDC, has questioned the efficacy of vaccines and public health measures to control disease outbreaks.

For an in-depth conversation on the role of Health and Human Services, listen to this 1A podcast episode with host Jenn White by clicking HERE.

Rebecca Katz, Director of the Center for Global Health Science and Security at Georgetown University and author of The Outbreak Atlas, reminds us that bird flu is the latest threat to human health. This past year alone, the world witnessed a Marburg virus outbreak in Rwanda, Mpox in central Africa, and a resurgence of measles worldwide, primarily driven by diminished confidence in childhood vaccines.

“There are death, taxes, and emerging infectious diseases. You can guarantee that there will be more diseases,” Katz told the Fulcrum, adding there is a collective tendency to pivot from cycles of panic to neglect. “We had the biggest generational disease event five years ago. Now, we are in the biggest valley of neglect. There's no money, no workforce, and no confidence. We're going to have to fix that.”

On January 3, President Joe Biden’s administration announced US$ 306 million in additional funding for the H5N1 response. However, experts such as Katz believe there are still insufficient resources allocated towards long-term pandemic preparedness. Despite the likelihood of future outbreaks, Trump has suggested disbanding the Office of Pandemic Preparedness, established in 2022, which would hinder coordinated national responses. Making childhood vaccines optional could further erode collective immunity and prompt insurers to stop covering them.

“The reason why vaccines are so readily available to people is because of the Affordable Care Act and the vaccine for children program,” said Sam Bagenstos, former General Council to HHS under President Biden, on the 1A show aired January 8 on NPR. “If the CDC Director were to take vaccines off that list, vaccines would instantly become effectively unavailable to most people in the country. There is a very substantial risk that even without taking away the approval of vaccines, even without any regulatory changes, a new administration could make it much harder for people to get vaccinated.”

Managing outbreaks, says Katz, is complex and requires coordination at all levels. While the CDC, as a federal agency, is tasked with the genetic sequencing of a virus, two things must be prioritized locally: disease surveillance and public awareness. However, “if I had to pick one priority investment, it would be people,” says Katz. “I am deeply concerned about our workforce. We don't have enough people, and the ones we have are not sufficiently supported to be able to do their jobs effectively.”

The lack of trust and outright threats directed at U.S. medical personnel and public health officials at the height of the pandemic prompted many to resign, leaving behind a demoralized and weaker workforce. Mistrust is fueled by rumors and inaccurate information. But dis information, which is false and deliberately intended to mislead the public, plays an even greater role in undermining trust.

The Outbreak Atlas, co-authored by Katz and Wellcome Trust scholar Mackenzie S. Moore, uses global case studies to explain outbreak preparedness, response, and recovery. It aims to educate people with the tools to make informed decisions during disease outbreaks, regardless of federal actions.

“I'm a professor, so I believe in increasing public literacy,” says Katz. “The more people know, the more they're able to understand, the better they're able to digest and make sense of the information that comes out around the next threat.”

Incoming administration officials would be wise to read The Outbreak Atlas. When George W. Bush was president, he urged his top officials to read The Great Influenza by historian John M. Barry, recognizing the need for a national strategy to prevent another catastrophe like the 1918 flu pandemic. His foresight was a model of preparedness. Why wait for bird flu—or any other infectious disease—to spiral out of control when the time to act is now?

Beatrice Spadacini is a freelance journalist who writes about social justice and public health.

Read More

Pro-Trump protestors
Trump supporters who attempted to overturn the 2020 election results are now seeking influential election oversight roles in battleground states.
Andrew Lichtenstein/Getty Images

Loving Someone Who Thinks the Election Was Stolen

He’s the kind of man you’d want as a neighbor in a storm.

Big guy. Strong hands. The person you’d call if your car slid into a ditch. He lives rural, works hard, supports a wife and young son, and helps care for his aging mom. Life has not been easy, but he shows up anyway.

Keep ReadingShow less
Project 2025 Drives Trump’s State Dept Overhaul

U.S. President Donald Trump in the Oval Office of the White House on December 15, 2025 in Washington, DC.

(Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

Project 2025 Drives Trump’s State Dept Overhaul

In May 2025, I wrote about the Trump administration’s early State Department reforms aligned with Project 2025, including calls for budget cuts, mission closures, and policy realignments. At the time, the most controversial move was an executive order targeting the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), shutting it down and freezing all federal foreign aid. This decision reflected Project 2025’s recommendation to scale back and "deradicalize" USAID by eliminating programs deemed overly politicized or inconsistent with conservative values. The report specifically criticized USAID for funding progressive initiatives, such as policies addressing systemic racism and central economic planning, arguing that U.S. foreign aid had become a "massive and open-ended global entitlement program" benefiting left-leaning organizations. The process connecting the report’s ideological critiques to this executive action involved a strategic alignment between key administration officials and Project 2025 architects, who lobbied for immediate policy adjustments. This coalition effectively linked the critique to policy by framing it as a necessary step toward realigning foreign aid with national interests and conservative principles.

Back then, I predicted even more sweeping changes to the State Department. Since May, several major developments have indeed reshaped the department:

Keep ReadingShow less
SNAP Isn’t a Negotiating Tool. It’s a Lifeline.
apples and bananas in brown cardboard box
Photo by Maria Lin Kim on Unsplash

SNAP Isn’t a Negotiating Tool. It’s a Lifeline.

Millions of families just survived the longest shutdown in U.S. history. Now they’re bracing again as politicians turn food assistance into a bargaining chip.

Food assistance should not be subject to politics, yet the Trump administration is now requiring over 20 Democratic-led states to share sensitive SNAP recipient data—including Social Security and immigration details—or risk losing funding. Officials call it "program integrity," but the effect is clear: millions of low-income families may once again have their access to food threatened by political disputes.

Keep ReadingShow less
Democrats’ Redistricting Gains Face New Court Battles Ahead of 2026 Elections
us a flag on white concrete building

Democrats’ Redistricting Gains Face New Court Battles Ahead of 2026 Elections

Earlier this year, I reported on Democrats’ redistricting wins in 2025, highlighting gains in states like California and North Carolina. As of December 18, the landscape has shifted again, with new maps finalized, ongoing court battles, and looming implications for the 2026 midterms.

Here are some key developments since mid‑2025:

  • California: Voters approved Proposition 50 in November, allowing legislature‑drawn maps that eliminated three safe Republican seats and made two more competitive. Democrats in vulnerable districts were redrawn into friendlier territory.
  • Virginia: On December 15, Democrats in the House of Delegates pushed a constitutional amendment on redistricting during a special session. Republicans denounced the move as unconstitutional, setting up a legal and political fight ahead of the 2026 elections.
  • Other states in play:
    • Ohio, Texas, Utah, Missouri, North Carolina: New maps are already in effect, reshaping battlegrounds.
    • Florida and Maryland: Legislatures have begun steps toward redistricting, though maps are not yet finalized.
    • New York: Court challenges may force changes to existing maps before 2026.
    • National picture: According to VoteHub’s tracker, the current district breakdown stands at 189 Democratic‑leaning, 205 Republican‑leaning, and 41 highly competitive seats.

Implications for 2026

  • Democrats’ wins in California and North Carolina strengthen their position, but legal challenges in Virginia and New York could blunt momentum.
  • Republicans remain favored in Texas and Ohio, where maps were redrawn to secure GOP advantages.
  • The unusually high number of mid‑decade redistricting efforts — not seen at this scale since the 1800s — underscores how both parties are aggressively shaping the battlefield for 2026.
So, here's the BIG PICTURE: The December snapshot shows Democrats still benefiting from redistricting in key states, but the fight is far from settled. With courts weighing in and legislatures maneuvering, the balance of power heading into the 2026 House elections remains fluid. What began as clear Democratic wins earlier in 2025 has evolved into a multi‑front contest over maps, legality, and political control.

Hugo Balta is the executive editor of the Fulcrum and the publisher of the Latino News Network