Two weeks ago, we were humbled by the conversations that followed our first issue. So many people are out there tracking these policies and their implications in depth—researchers, advocates, clinicians—and we’re blown away by what we’re finding. The public health response to what’s unfolding has been remarkable: states moving fast, medical organizations holding the line, legal teams working around the clock, communicators finding creative ways to reach people. We’ll be linking to as much of it as we can throughout this piece, because part of what we want this series to be is a jumping-off point, connecting you to the people on the ground doing this work and the resources they are creating.

---

The United States has supported the World Health Organization (WHO) since its inception, playing a central role in its 1948 creation because it ultimately served American interests, despite the entity’s well-known flaws. Heavily influenced by the post-war notion that universalism was the best corrective to yet another devastating global conflict, 20th century leaders in the U.S. understood that improving global health and containing emergencies were desirable outcomes in and of themselves and would directly reduce health threats to Americans. At the time, the U.S. also recognized that building and maintaining an effective global health infrastructure was beyond its lone capacity. Because no one could predict where new infections would emerge, the world required a truly global surveillance and response system. Through WHO, the U.S. leveraged funding sources far beyond its own substantial monetary contributions and granted U.S. experts access to countries otherwise hostile to American initiatives. U.S. withdrawal from the organization on 22 January 2026 and from other international health partnerships, such as Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance—which I led from 2011 to 2023—makes achieving America’s interests more difficult, especially as the current administration dismantles much of the country’s other public health infrastructure.

---

(TNND) — The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is refusing to review Moderna’s application for approval of an mRNA-based flu vaccine, the latest step taken by the administration that might chill the use of the technology that was key to the rapid development of COVID-19 vaccines during the pandemic.

---