It’s remarkable that it’s already been five years since the COVID-19 pandemic began. Since 2020, the U.S. has recorded over 1.2 million deaths, the highest number of any country. This figure represents more than one in seven of all reported COVID-19 deaths globally, although the actual worldwide death toll is likely higher due to underreporting. It’s important to remember that COVID-19 was a devastating disease, comparable in lethality only to the 1918 Spanish Flu and the Bubonic Plague, and not to minimize its impact.
In 2025, the days of lockdowns and quarantines seem like a distant memory for many, even though the pandemic’s physical, mental, and emotional effects linger. However, a crucial question remains: Are we better prepared for the next pandemic?
Unfortunately, the answer is likely no, we are less prepared.
Pandemics are not necessarily rare events. We witnessed the 2009 swine flu pandemic, which resulted in deaths. Currently, H5N1 bird flu is spreading among poultry, wild birds, and mammals in the U.S., increasing the risk of it spilling over into humans. This makes the U.S. a potential ground zero for a new flu pandemic if the virus evolves to spread easily among humans. Other circulating threats include MPox, MERS (another coronavirus with a high fatality rate), and Ebola. And, of course, there’s always the possibility of “Disease X,” a future unknown virus.
What actions should we be taking that we aren’t? First, we need to invest in pandemic preparedness, not cut funding. The U.S. has . The WHO, working with local and national health authorities, plays a vital role as a “first responder,” identifying and containing infectious-disease outbreaks. The U.S. previously contributed approximately to responding to acute health emergencies and preventing pandemics, so a reduction in our contributions will create a significant gap in resources needed to address emergencies and prevent the spread of outbreaks. Moreover, recent funding cuts or freezes are already impacting public health, raising concerns that progress in addressing infectious diseases will slow down or regress. Reduced funding also slows down pandemic preparations, and the U.S.’s decision to cease negotiations for the and amendments to the International Health Regulations exacerbates the situation.
On a national level, plans to de-prioritize infectious-disease research and are likely to leave the public-health workforce under-resourced and ill-equipped to handle future pandemic threats. Although some employees have since been , the loss of experienced personnel involved in potential pandemic response means losing invaluable knowledge gained from working on the frontlines during COVID-19.
Second, the ideologies and past actions of some individuals in charge of protecting public health in the U.S. suggest that the response to a new pandemic in the coming years would be minimal. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. supported (though weakly) the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine to combat a measles outbreak in Texas. However, he has a history of RFK Jr. has . The Trump Administration is reportedly for H5N1 mRNA vaccine research. Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, the , held views on COVID-19 that differed from the scientific consensus, including advocating for a herd-immunity approach that critics argued would have resulted in preventable deaths. While U.S. COVID-19 policies were not perfect, and while some extreme measures like extended could hopefully be avoided in the future, inaction during the next health emergency would be irresponsible. The question is, how actively will measures like vaccines be promoted next time?
Third, we need to rebuild public confidence and trust in science, not continue to erode it. Recent rhetoric from figures like Trump and Kennedy, as well as influential social media personalities and podcasters, is fostering a conspiracy mindset towards science and health organizations, branding them as “” and . Research from the COVID-19 pandemic has shown that one of the is the public’s level of trust in science and health authorities. Can the new administration restore trust in science and health organizations? If not, will people trust public-health guidance during future health emergencies, including infectious disease outbreaks?
If the answer is not “yes” by the time the next pandemic arrives, the consequences will be dire.