Science Under Siege

What a New COVID Variant, a Vaccine Rollback, and a Global Agreement Reveal About Public Health in 2025

Executive Summary

As a new COVID-19 variant spreads within the United States, federal vaccine guidance has been quietly reversed, coinciding with the recent adoption of a landmark global agreement on pandemic preparedness at the World Health Assembly. In the U.S., political interference is increasingly undermining long-established norms of science-based policymaking, while disinformation becomes institutionalized within federal frameworks. Internationally, the World Health Organization’s Pandemic Agreement represents a fragile yet significant step toward collective action, though it lacks binding enforcement and leaves several critical issues unresolved. The stakes are considerable: current developments constitute a pivotal test of whether institutions, leaders, and societies will uphold the integrity of public health or allow it to be compromised by politicization. Key themes include the:

• Emergence of NB.1.8.1 and Insufficient Preparedness. The highly transmissible NB.1.8.1 COVID-19 variant is now circulating in the U.S., exacerbated by waning population immunity, increasing hospitalizations, and a widening disconnect between actual risk and public perception.

• Reversal of Vaccine Guidance Without Scientific Oversight. Federal recommendations for COVID-19 vaccination in children and pregnant women have been downgraded without transparent scientific review or public discourse, establishing a precedent for political intervention in evidence-based health policy.

• Institutionalization of Disinformation. Disinformation, previously propagated by fringe actors, is now being embedded within government policy frameworks such as Project 2025, which seeks to dismantle regulatory agencies and curtail science-driven governance.

• The WHO Pandemic Agreement. The new agreement introduces important commitments to equity, coordination, and access to countermeasures. However, it lacks enforceable mechanisms, omits intellectual property reform, offers no concrete response to disinformation, and does not mandate binding financial contributions.

• Politicization of Public Health Norms. The reframing of public health as a partisan issue in the U.S. threatens not only domestic vaccination efforts and public trust, but also undermines global cooperation and future pandemic preparedness.

The Variant We’re Ignoring

As the world’s attention drifts elsewhere, a new COVID-19 variant, NB.1.8.1, has quietly surged in China and is now making its presence known in the United States. While headlines have faded and pandemic fatigue dominates public sentiment, the virus continues to evolve. Early surveillance data from Chinese health authorities and the U.S. CDC indicate that NB.1.8.1 is more transmissible than its predecessors, with a notable ability to evade existing immunity from both vaccines and prior infections. Public health officials have confirmed its arrival in several U.S. states, and wastewater monitoring suggests it is spreading faster than official case counts reveal.

And yet, we’re barely talking about it.

Hospitalizations are ticking upward, especially among older adults and those with chronic conditions. Booster uptake remains low, in part due to confusion and mistrust. Most people believe the pandemic is over—and why wouldn’t they? Public messaging dried up months ago. But just because we’re tired of hearing about COVID, doesn’t mean the virus is done with us. Because, unfortunately, it’s not.

This disconnect between public risk and reality is dangerous. I understand the exhaustion—we’ve been through a lot. But fatigue does not reduce risk. If anything, it amplifies it, and makes us more vulnerable to new waves of infection. The emergence of NB.1.8.1 is a reminder of what many of us in public health already know: pathogens don’t wait for us to be ready. They just keep evolving.

RFK Jr.’s Quiet Repeal of COVID Vaccine Guidance

Against this backdrop, a major policy shift has taken place almost unnoticed. In early May 2025, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. quietly rolled back CDC and FDA-supported guidance recommending COVID-19 vaccination for children and pregnant women. The change was not accompanied by a major public announcement or robust scientific debate. Instead, updated guidance appeared on agency websites, with language softened from “recommended” to “optional,” and references to safety and effectiveness for these groups quietly removed.

On the surface, it may seem like a minimal adjustment to the language. But it’s not. This is a fundamental break from decades of science-driven health policy. Vaccine recommendations in the U.S. have always been based on transparent scientific review, with input from advisory committees and public health experts. That process has now been bypassed.

In circumventing established scientific reviews, the administration has set a troubling precedent for political interference in public health guidance—an unsurprising development under the current leadership, yet one that jeopardizes both COVID-19 vaccination efforts and broader public trust in immunization programs.

And the consequences are real. Children and pregnant people are among the groups most vulnerable to infectious disease—and the ones who most need our protection. Rolling back these recommendations without clear scientific justification sends a chilling message: that politics, not evidence, now drives health decisions in this country.

When Disinformation Becomes Policy

This policy shift is not an isolated event. It is part of a broader trend: the politicization of public health and the mainstreaming of misinformation from the highest levels of government. The vaccine rollback aligns with the goals of Project 2025 to remake the federal government, including efforts to weaken or eliminate regulatory agencies and limit their ability to combat false information. It’s not just about COVID. It’s also about elections, education, reproductive health, and more. What used to be on the fringe of ultra-right rhetoric is now policy.

And the result? A collapse in trust.

Vaccine rates are falling, not just for COVID but for basic childhood immunizations like MMR. Preventable diseases are coming back. Public health officials are under attack—rhetorically, politically, and in some cases physically. And the people who rely most on science-based health systems—children, people with chronic illnesses, low-income families—are the ones left unprotected.

What the World Just Signed

While the U.S. doubles down on politicized health policy, the global community just took a different step. On May 20, the World Health Assembly adopted the first legally binding Pandemic Agreement. It’s not perfect, but it is historic.

The agreement aims to improve coordination, build faster access to vaccines and treatments, and ensure that no country is left behind next time a pandemic comes. And believe me, it will. It also includes a new system that would require pharmaceutical companies to reserve a portion of vaccines for global distribution and it lays the groundwork for stronger data sharing, improved logistics, and global financing mechanisms to prepare for future pandemics.

However, it stops short in critical areas. It doesn’t create enforcement mechanisms. It doesn’t require countries to contribute funds. It doesn’t address intellectual property or misinformation in a meaningful way. And while it encourages countries to share data, it doesn’t mandate new surveillance systems or quality standards.

In short: it’s a framework, not a fix. But it’s something—and that matters during a time when it seems the world can’t agree on anything, let alone on something as complex as pandemic response.

Indeed, the Pandemic Agreement is a rare moment of global consensus in a deeply divided world. It’s a direct response to the failures of the COVID-19 era—when wealthy nations had access to more than their fair share of vaccines, when supply chains were fragile and sometimes broken, and when millions were left without the tools they needed to fight disease. It’s also a test: not just of diplomacy, but of whether we’ve learned from the past to inform a more responsive and resilient future. For global health institutions like WHO and Gavi, this agreement is both a mandate and a challenge—to rebuild trust, deliver on promises, and make sure no one is left behind when the next crisis hits.

And they’re being asked to do that at a time when global health is already severely strained. Funding has plummeted. USAID has shuttered. Political support is limited. The infrastructure we spent decades building is being dismantled in a way that makes combating the next pandemic an even more difficult ask.

Theoretically, the United States still has an outsized role to play. What we choose to do—or more likely, choose not to do—will shape not just what happens here at home, but whether the rest of the world can count on us when it matters most. If the U.S. continues to retreat from science-based public health, the damage won’t stop at our borders. It will ripple outward, undermining the very systems we helped create.

So where does that leave us?

The way forward won’t be easy, but it’s not a mystery. First, we have to stay alert. New variants like NB.1.8.1 will keep emerging. That’s the nature of viruses. We need strong systems in place to track them, respond quickly, and communicate clearly. That means resourcing and trusting public health agencies, not sidelining them. Given the federal funding cuts to the NIH, CDC and FDA, I certainly worry that the infastructure we need is no longer viable, but Congress does still have the power to stop some of these devastating cuts, if they chose to act.

We also have to get louder about the truth. Misinformation doesn’t spread on its own, it thrives when no one combats it. Scientists, reporters, and frontline workers need the freedom and support to speak plainly about what we know, what we don’t, and what’s still unfolding. And yes, we need real accountability for those who knowingly spread lies that put people’s lives at risk.

We can’t do any of this without the people who keep our systems going. Nurses, lab techs, local health officers, data scientists. They’re still showing up, even as budgets are cut and threats escalate. Burnout isn’t just a staffing problem. It’s a safety issue. We need to protect and invest in this workforce like the public good it is. That means not cutting Medicaid and Medicare, and it means fixing our broken health system.

And above all, we have to stop pretending that public health is neutral. It’s not. Public health has always been political—it’s about power, priorities, and whose lives are treated as worth protecting. But that’s not the same as being partisan. Partisan fights are about party loyalty. Public health should be about collective responsibility. When we let it become a tool for scoring political points or punishing certain groups, we all lose.

The goal isn’t to win an argument. The goal is what it’s always been: to protect health, safety, and human dignity. For everyone.

A Call to Action

The emergence of NB.1.8.1 and the quiet rollback of vaccine guidance are not isolated events. They are symptoms of a broader crisis in public health governance—one marked by fatigue, polarization, and the erosion of trust. The WHO’s Pandemic Agreement offers a glimmer of hope: a reminder that global solidarity and science-based action are still possible.

But agreements on paper are not enough. The real test is what happens next in Washington, Geneva, Beijing, and every community facing the ongoing threat of infectious disease. We must demand better from our leaders, support those on the front lines, and refuse to let misinformation, regardless of who it comes from, define our future.

The stakes have never been higher. The path forward demands vigilance, integrity, and a renewed commitment to the foundational principles of public health: equity, evidence-based action, transparency, and collective responsibility.

References
Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention. (2025). Weekly COVID-19 Variant Report.
U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2025). COVID Data Tracker: Variant Proportions.
CDC COVID-NET. (2025). Hospitalization Surveillance Data.
Pew Research Center. (2024). Americans’ Views on the End of the COVID-19 Emergency.
CDC. (2025). Updated COVID-19 Vaccine Guidance for Children and Pregnant Women.
The New England Journal of Medicine. (2023). The Dangers of Politicizing Vaccine Policy.
CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). (2024). Meeting Summary.
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. (2024). COVID-19 Vaccination Guidance.
The Heritage Foundation. (2025). Project 2025: Mandate for Leadership.
The Lancet. (2024). Government Disinformation and Public Health.
CDC. (2025). National Immunization Survey: Declines in Routine Childhood Vaccination.
Gallup. (2025). Trust in Public Health Institutions at Record Lows.
World Health Organization. (2025). WHA Pandemic Agreement Adopted.
WHO Pandemic Agreement Text. (2025). Pathogen Access and Benefit Sharing System.
WHO. (2025). FAQ: Pandemic Agreement and National Sovereignty.
WHO Pandemic Agreement FAQ. (2025).
Reuters. (2025). WHO Members Agree Pandemic Deal.
Devex. (2025). What’s In—and Not In—the Pandemic Agreement.