Is the US prepared to deal with another pandemic or widespread health crisis?

Leans noSays it is contested

Assessments of the United States' preparedness to handle another major pandemic or widespread health crisis are highly divided. While the U.S. possesses world-class scientific innovation, vast private-sector manufacturing, and robust clinical research capabilities, a series of major policy shifts, budget cuts, and domestic social changes have led many public health experts to warn that the country is structurally and operationally less prepared than it was prior to 2020.

The state of U.S. pandemic readiness can be understood through a breakdown of recent international policy changes, domestic funding restructures, and public trust challenges.

1. International Policy and Global Surveillance Shifts

A core pillar of pandemic preparedness is early detection: spotting a virus abroad before it reaches U.S. soil. However, the U.S. has undergone a massive restructuring of its global health relationships:

•Withdrawal from the World Health Organization (WHO): Following a one-year notice period initiated in January 2025, the U.S. officially withdrew from the WHO on January 22, 2026. Proponents of the exit (led by Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Secretary of State Marco Rubio) argued that the WHO failed during the COVID-19 pandemic, lacked transparency, and was overly politicized. Conversely, epidemiologists warn that leaving the WHO isolates the U.S. from critical global networks. Most notably, the U.S. no longer participates in the Global Influenza Surveillance and Response System (GISRS), which tracks influenza strains (like H5N1 avian flu) used to formulate annual vaccines.

•Dissolution of USAID: On July 1, 2025, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) was dissolved, and its remaining global health portfolios were absorbed into the State Department. While framed as a move to cut bureaucratic redundancy, public health advocates note it disrupted long-standing international outbreak monitoring programs.

•"America First Global Health Strategy": Released in September 2025, this strategy pivots the U.S. away from multilateral funding and NGO-led programs toward direct, bilateral five-year Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) with partner countries, primarily focused on U.S. national security, economic prosperity, and early containment. Proponents argue this maximizes taxpayer return on investment, while critics argue borderless, transnational health threats cannot be managed solely through bilateral, transaction-based relationships.

2. Domestic Infrastructure and Institutional Downsizing

Domestically, the agency responsible for monitoring and containing disease outbreaks—the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)—has experienced profound workforce and funding contractions:

•CDC Staffing Reductions: Between early 2025 and 2026, the CDC lost approximately 25% to 33% of its total workforce (roughly 3,000 to 4,300 employees) due to multiple rounds of layoffs, personnel cuts, and administrative restructures. In addition, many senior leadership positions at the agency remain unfilled by permanent officials.

•Budget Reductions and Grant Clawbacks: The federal government clawed back approximately $11.4 billion in COVID-era emergency grants previously distributed to state and local health departments. Proposed federal budgets have also sought to scale back CDC funding and shift resources to other newly formed federal entities. Local health authorities warn that the loss of these funds has gutted regional disease-surveillance infrastructure.

•Uneven Regional Readiness: According to the Ready or Not 2026 report by the Trust for America's Health, domestic preparedness varies wildly by state. Only about 20 states are classified in the "high-performance" tier for public health emergency capabilities, while many states struggle with low flu vaccination rates, weak laboratory surge capacities, and understaffed regional clinics.

3. Public Trust and Social Vulnerability

Even if medical countermeasures (like vaccines and antivirals) are developed rapidly, their effectiveness depends on public uptake, which has severely degraded:

•The Breakdown of Public Trust: Leading epidemiologists and public health advocates cite a deep polarization and erosion of trust in public health messaging since 2020. There has been a significant shift toward prioritizing "individual choice" over "collective public safety".

•Declining Immunization Rates: This skepticism has translated into a drop in routine childhood vaccinations. Consequently, diseases previously considered under control are reemerging; for example, the U.S. saw measles cases surge from 285 in 2024 to nearly 2,300 in 2025, indicating weakened community immunity. Experts point to this resurgence as a proxy warning for how the public might respond to a novel vaccine during a future pandemic.

4. Counter-Arguments: Where the U.S. is Stronger

Despite these systemic and diplomatic challenges, proponents of the government's current trajectory argue that the U.S. is better equipped in specific, pragmatic ways:

•Rapid Medical Innovation: The U.S. remains the undisputed global leader in biomedical research. Private-public partnerships, combined with streamlined FDA emergency authorization pathways, allow for the incredibly rapid development of mRNA vaccines, diagnostic kits, and therapeutics.

•Operational Agility: Proponents of the recent federal downsizings argue that the pre-2025 public health bureaucracy was bloated, slow-moving, and prone to "collective amnesia". By focusing on bilateral agreements and integrating private healthcare networks, the administration aims to build a leaner, more economically resilient emergency response model.

•Legal Countermeasures: Frameworks like the PREP Act remain intact, allowing the government to quickly provide liability protections to manufacturers to fast-track vaccine and treatment distribution when a public health emergency is declared.

Summary

The U.S. currently possesses the scientific tools to fight a pandemic, but its operational and social machinery is under severe strain. If a widespread health crisis were to strike today, the U.S. would likely suffer from a lack of early warning due to its withdrawal from the WHO, a depleted domestic CDC workforce, diminished local state-level surveillance budgets, and a highly skeptical public resistant to standardized health guidance.

Citations (20)

1apha.orgNonprofits and think tanks
apha.org
Backs: “While the U.S. possesses world-class scientific innovation, vast private-sector manufacturing, and robust clinical research capabilities, a series of major policy shifts, budget cuts, and domestic social changes have led many public health experts to warn that the country is structurally and operationally less…”
evidence, article, points to no. Claim: Public health experts warn the US is structurally and operationally less prepared than before 2020 despite scientific strengths.
2pandorareport.orgNonprofits and think tanks
pandorareport.org
Backs: “While the U.S. possesses world-class scientific innovation, vast private-sector manufacturing, and robust clinical research capabilities, a series of major policy shifts, budget cuts, and domestic social changes have led many public health experts to warn that the country is structurally and operationally less…”
evidence, article, points to no. Claim: Public health experts warn the US is structurally and operationally less prepared than before 2020 despite scientific strengths.
3pbs.orgNews and mediaquality 0.87
pbs.org
Backs: “While the U.S. possesses world-class scientific innovation, vast private-sector manufacturing, and robust clinical research capabilities, a series of major policy shifts, budget cuts, and domestic social changes have led many public health experts to warn that the country is structurally and operationally less…”
evidence, article, points to no. Claim: Public health experts warn the US is structurally and operationally less prepared than before 2020 despite scientific strengths.
4umn.eduAcademic
umn.edu
Backs: “Withdrawal from the World Health Organization (WHO): Following a one-year notice period initiated in January 2025, the U.S. officially withdrew from the WHO on January 22, 2026.”
evidence, article, points to no. Claim: The US officially withdrew from the WHO on January 22, 2026, after a one-year notice period.
5cdc.govGovernment
cdc.gov
Backs: “Withdrawal from the World Health Organization (WHO): Following a one-year notice period initiated in January 2025, the U.S. officially withdrew from the WHO on January 22, 2026.”
evidence, other, neutral. Claim: The US officially withdrew from the WHO on January 22, 2026, after a one-year notice period.
6hhs.govGovernment
hhs.gov
Backs: “Withdrawal from the World Health Organization (WHO): Following a one-year notice period initiated in January 2025, the U.S. officially withdrew from the WHO on January 22, 2026.”
evidence, official document, neutral. Claim: The US officially withdrew from the WHO on January 22, 2026, after a one-year notice period.
7usmission.govGovernment
usmission.gov
Backs: “and Secretary of State Marco Rubio) argued that the WHO failed during the COVID-19 pandemic, lacked transparency, and was overly politicized.”
attribution, official document, points to yes. Claim: Officials argued the WHO failed during COVID-19, lacked transparency, and was overly politicized.
8who.intGovernment
who.int
Backs: “Conversely, epidemiologists warn that leaving the WHO isolates the U.S. from critical global networks.”
attribution, other, points to no. Claim: Epidemiologists warn that leaving the WHO isolates the US from critical global networks.
9brookings.eduNonprofits and think tanks
brookings.edu
Backs: “Dissolution of USAID: On July 1, 2025, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) was dissolved, and its remaining global health portfolios were absorbed into the State Department.”
evidence, article, points to no. Claim: USAID was dissolved July 1, 2025, with global health portfolios absorbed into the State Department.
10donortracker.orgData and tools
donortracker.org
Backs: “"America First Global Health Strategy": Released in September 2025, this strategy pivots the U.S. away from multilateral funding and NGO-led programs toward direct, bilateral five-year Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) with partner countries, primarily focused on U.S. national security, economic prosperity, and early…”
evidence, data page, neutral. Claim: America First Global Health Strategy shifts to bilateral five-year MOUs focused on national security and early containment.
11one.orgNonprofits and think tanks
one.org
Backs: “"America First Global Health Strategy": Released in September 2025, this strategy pivots the U.S. away from multilateral funding and NGO-led programs toward direct, bilateral five-year Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) with partner countries, primarily focused on U.S. national security, economic prosperity, and early…”
evidence, article, neutral. Claim: America First Global Health Strategy shifts to bilateral five-year MOUs focused on national security and early containment.
12globalhealthnow.orgAcademic
globalhealthnow.org
Backs: “Proponents argue this maximizes taxpayer return on investment, while critics argue borderless, transnational health threats cannot be managed solely through bilateral, transaction-based relationships.”
attribution, article, points to no. Claim: Critics argue transnational health threats cannot be managed solely through bilateral, transactional relationships.
13fedtools.comData and tools
fedtools.com
Backs: “CDC Staffing Reductions: Between early 2025 and 2026, the CDC lost approximately 25% to 33% of its total workforce (roughly 3,000 to 4,300 employees) due to multiple rounds of layoffs, personnel cuts, and administrative restructures. In addition, many senior leadership positions at the agency remain unfilled by…”
statistic, article, points to no. Claim: CDC lost roughly 25-33% of its workforce (3,000-4,300 employees) between 2025 and 2026.
14defendpublichealth.orgNonprofits and think tanks
defendpublichealth.org
Backs: “CDC Staffing Reductions: Between early 2025 and 2026, the CDC lost approximately 25% to 33% of its total workforce (roughly 3,000 to 4,300 employees) due to multiple rounds of layoffs, personnel cuts, and administrative restructures. In addition, many senior leadership positions at the agency remain unfilled by…”
statistic, article, points to no. Claim: CDC lost roughly 25-33% of its workforce (3,000-4,300 employees) between 2025 and 2026.
15gwu.eduAcademic
gwu.edu
Backs: “Proposed federal budgets have also sought to scale back CDC funding and shift resources to other newly formed federal entities. Local health authorities warn that the loss of these funds has gutted regional disease-surveillance infrastructure.”
evidence, article, points to no. Claim: Proposed federal budgets sought to scale back CDC funding and shift resources to other entities.
16gwu.eduAcademic
gwu.edu
Backs: “Local health authorities warn that the loss of these funds has gutted regional disease-surveillance infrastructure. Uneven Regional Readiness: According to the Ready or Not 2026 report by the Trust for America's Health, domestic preparedness varies wildly by state.”
evidence, article, points to no. Claim: Local health authorities warn the loss of clawed-back funds has gutted regional disease-surveillance infrastructure.
17tfah.orgNonprofits and think tanks
tfah.org
Backs: “Uneven Regional Readiness: According to the Ready or Not 2026 report by the Trust for America's Health, domestic preparedness varies wildly by state. Only about 20 states are classified in the "high-performance" tier for public health emergency capabilities, while many states struggle with low flu vaccination rates,…”
statistic, official document, points to no. Claim: Ready or Not 2026 report shows state preparedness varies widely, with only about 20 states in the high-performance tier.
18youtube.comSocial media and video
youtube.com
Backs: “The Breakdown of Public Trust: Leading epidemiologists and public health advocates cite a deep polarization and erosion of trust in public health messaging since 2020. There has been a significant shift toward prioritizing "individual choice" over "collective public safety".”
evidence, social or video, points to no. Claim: Epidemiologists cite polarization and erosion of public trust in public health messaging since 2020.
19cuny.eduAcademic
cuny.edu
Backs: “Private-public partnerships, combined with streamlined FDA emergency authorization pathways, allow for the incredibly rapid development of mRNA vaccines, diagnostic kits, and therapeutics. Operational Agility: Proponents of the recent federal downsizings argue that the pre-2025 public health bureaucracy was bloated,…”
evidence, article, points to yes. Claim: Public-private partnerships and streamlined FDA emergency pathways enable rapid development of mRNA vaccines, diagnostics, and therapeutics.
20centerforhealthsecurity.orgAcademic
centerforhealthsecurity.org
Backs: “Private-public partnerships, combined with streamlined FDA emergency authorization pathways, allow for the incredibly rapid development of mRNA vaccines, diagnostic kits, and therapeutics. Operational Agility: Proponents of the recent federal downsizings argue that the pre-2025 public health bureaucracy was bloated,…”
evidence, article, points to yes. Claim: Public-private partnerships and streamlined FDA emergency pathways enable rapid development of mRNA vaccines, diagnostics, and therapeutics.