2025 Health: Progress Undermined by Policy Shifts in the United States

2025 has unfolded as a year of unraveling progress in health in the United States, with political decisions at the White House and the Department of Health and Human Services shifting public-health policy backward rather than forward. Advocates and researchers say the year featured a pattern of retrenchment that could slow advances long into the future, even as scientists reported breakthroughs in gene therapies and other cutting-edge treatments. The trajectory of public health this year has raised questions about funding, trust, and the resilience of scientific infrastructure that underpins everyday medical care.

In January, the administration moved to dismantle the United States Agency for International Development, shuttering programs that delivered life-saving global health interventions, including childhood vaccinations, and signaling a broader shift in the nation’s public-health posture. At home, the Administration followed with cuts to the National Institutes of Health, trimming budgets and personnel at a time when biomedical research serves as the backbone for vaccines, cancer therapies, and potential cures in the pipeline. Meanwhile, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention faced a controversial pivot in public messaging about vaccines, with officials publicly casting doubt on long-established assurances about vaccine safety and effectiveness. The changes, critics say, introduced new uncertainties at a moment when high-quality evidence and trusted guidance are essential to keeping outbreaks at bay and maintaining vaccination programs.

Public-health commentators have tied these developments to the MAHA agenda — Make America Healthy Again — and to a leadership stance on vaccines championed by HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a longtime vaccine skeptic. In the spring, the department reportedly withdrew investments in research into new mRNA vaccines, signaling a shift in priorities even as the broader vaccine landscape evolved. Kennedy also publicly suggested that the CDC would no longer routinely recommend the yearly COVID-19 vaccine for most Americans, prompting some states to adjust their guidelines and to continue funding or endorsing the shot for certain populations. These moves intensified concerns about inconsistent guidance and the reliability of long-standing vaccination schedules.

By mid-year, the tensions within the public-health apparatus had sharpened. In June, Kennedy fired members of the CDC’s vaccine advisory committee and replaced them with appointees who questioned vaccine safety, a move that drew criticism from scientific and public-health groups. In August, President Trump dismissed the CDC’s newly named head after disagreements over strategy, signaling a broader realignment of authority over vaccine policy. The administration later revived a previously disbanded task force intended to reinvestigate childhood vaccine safety, even as multiple analyses continued to support the safety profile of vaccines in common use. In parallel, the CDC’s online guidance appeared to move away from absolute determinations about vaccine safety, noting that claims asserting that vaccines do not cause autism are not presented as evidence-based conclusions. These shifts raised concerns among public-health experts about eroding trust in science and the potential for misaligned policies to affect vaccination uptake across the country.

Despite the political and policy shifts, experts emphasized that decades of scientific evidence remain on vaccines’ side. They point to the foundational role of NIH-funded research in giving rise to life-saving immunotherapies for cancer and the development of gene therapies that have reported promising results this year. Immunotherapies, which have extended and saved countless lives, began as a product of NIH-funded science, and gene therapies continue to offer potential cures or long-term control for diseases that were previously untreatable. The year’s notable scientific signals also included early-stage results in gene therapies targeting Huntington’s disease, a rare inherited condition, as well as approaches aimed at high cholesterol, illustrating the breadth of innovations that originate in well-funded basic research programs. Yet, researchers warn that without sustained funding and an environment that supports rigorous, peer-reviewed inquiry, the trajectory of these discoveries could be slowed or interrupted, limiting not only the availability of new treatments but also the ongoing development of future cures and preventive measures.

Public-health professionals say the erosion of the NIH’s funding and capacity could have lasting effects beyond specific programs. The NIH supports a wide array of basic science, translational research, and clinical trials that underlie vaccines, diagnostics, therapeutics, and preventive strategies. When a robust pipeline is weakened, the flow of innovations from laboratory findings to approved, accessible therapies can stall, raising concerns about future readiness to address emerging infections or chronic diseases. With populations living longer and facing complex health challenges, the need for novel therapies and preventive tools appears all the more pressing, underscoring the tension between political decisions and the practical realities of maintaining a state-of-the-art health research ecosystem.

In this context, the health landscape of 2025 is being assessed through two lenses: the advances scientists continued to report in laboratories around the world and the policy environment at home that shapes how quickly those advances can reach patients. Experts caution that the gains in areas such as immunotherapy and gene therapy do not automatically translate into faster patient access if basic research and the clinical trials infrastructure are diminished. The year’s developments highlight the essential dependability of sustained funding for biomedical research, the importance of evidence-based public health guidance, and the continuing need for policies that balance innovation with rigorous safety and effectiveness assessments. As the public health community weighs lessons from 2025, the hope remains that future breakthroughs will be supported by stable resources and a framework that preserves public trust in science and medicine.