Another Pandemic Is Inevitable, and U.S. Policy Could Weaken Global Health Defenses

A Time analysis contends that another pandemic is not a question of if, but when, and that U.S. policy shifts threaten to erode the nation’s readiness. The COVID-19 pandemic left more than 1.2 million Americans dead and exposed how fragile the country’s defenses can be against a sweeping health crisis. Researchers project roughly a 50 percent chance that a pandemic with magnitude similar to COVID-19—more than 25 million global deaths—could occur in the next two decades. Against that backdrop, the Time piece argues that U.S. funding for global health is falling dramatically, by about 67 percent this year, or more than $9 billion, a figure that would mark a seismic shift for a country that has long financed a large share of global health programs.

The article notes that the United States has played a central role in creating and supporting global health initiatives since World War II, building health systems in lower- and middle-income countries and financing efforts to monitor and respond to emerging infectious diseases. Senior U.S. agencies, including the CDC and the National Institutes of Health, have contributed expertise and resources that helped control outbreaks and develop interventions. The Time analysis emphasizes that many of these programs have underpinned health security at home by preventing threats from crossing borders.

But in the current administration's funding request for Fiscal Year 2026, the White House proposes eliminating the Global Health Center within the CDC, part of a broader plan to reorganize public health agencies under the moniker "Make America Healthy Again." The same request also contemplates withdrawal from and funding cuts to the World Health Organization, further eroding an architecture of international coordination that has been central to global health for decades. The article notes that NIH funding, which backs research and capacity-building abroad, would face deep cuts as well. Together, the proposals would curtail U.S. leadership in global health at the precise moment when foreign assistance helps safeguard American health security by reducing the risk of outbreaks reaching U.S. shores.

Vaccination programs stand out as a case study in the cost of retreat. The United States has been a leading donor to Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, supporting routine immunization and helping to stockpile vaccines for outbreaks. The article notes that the U.S. has pledged about $1.5 billion over five years to Gavi and has historically provided roughly 13 percent of its core funding. In June, however, Secretary Kennedy announced that the United States would not fulfill that pledge. Absent new donors stepping in to fill the gap, the analysis estimates about 75 million fewer children could be vaccinated, potentially resulting in roughly 1.2 million preventable deaths. The article stresses that even as global health funding fluctuates, vaccines remain among the most cost-effective tools for preventing disease and saving lives.

Yet there is a countercurrent in the legislative arena. Senate lawmakers have resisted proposals to slash funding for U.S. diplomacy and global health programs, and some proposals have even called for increased support. The House has shown mixed signals, with many members privately backing long-standing investments even as some votes threaten to weaken programs. The time path remains uncertain: past administrations faced pressure to cut; now the political climate has shifted. Even if Congress approves funding, the final budget could be altered, and allocations may not be spent as intended, potentially leaving gaps in preparedness and response capacity.

The article frames these potential shifts as not just aid decisions but questions of national security. Global health programs have long reduced the risk of outbreaks that could devastate economies and lead to mass casualties. By funding surveillance networks, vaccine delivery, and outbreak response, the United States has helped to prevent crises from taking hold before they reach its own shores. The cost of inaction, the piece argues, is measured not only in human lives but in the eventual economic toll of a global health emergency that ripples across borders. The plan to reimagine federal public health agencies, if enacted, could complicate coordination with partners and slow the responses that have kept past outbreaks at bay.