the work of the US CDC has been invaluable and must be protected
At a moment when political winds are reshaping the institutions that guard public health, the World Health Organization's director general has stepped forward to remind the world what is at stake in the quiet erosion of scientific independence. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, without naming those responsible for the turbulence, offered a measured defense of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention — an agency whose decades of work have shaped how nations respond to disease, not just within American borders but across the globe. His words arrived as the Trump administration, guided by a health secretary skeptical of vaccines and federal health structures, begins remaking the CDC from within, and as the United States moves toward severing its formal ties with the WHO itself. What hangs in the balance is not merely one agency's fate, but the architecture of trust and cooperation that holds international public health together.
- The CDC, long regarded as the world's gold standard for disease surveillance and public health science, is being reshaped by a new administration whose health secretary has alarmed experts with his skepticism of vaccines and federal health institutions.
- WHO Director General Tedros issued a rare public defense of the CDC, signaling that the international health community is watching the agency's transformation with deep unease.
- Tedros stopped short of naming RFK Jr. or calling for his resignation, framing his statement as a plea for institutional protection rather than a political rebuke — but the subtext was unmistakable.
- The CDC-WHO partnership has for decades moved expertise and early disease warnings in both directions, and its disruption would leave gaps in global health intelligence that no single nation could fill alone.
- With the Trump administration already ordering a US withdrawal from the WHO and dismissing the organization as 'moribund,' the question is whether the CDC can be shielded from political pressure even as Washington retreats from global health cooperation.
On a Sunday in early September, the head of the World Health Organization offered a carefully measured defense of an American institution under siege. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, writing on X, called for the "protection of public health excellence" at the CDC — an agency facing mounting pressure from the Trump administration's new health leadership. He did not name Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., whose vaccine skepticism and early policy moves have alarmed public health advocates worldwide. Instead, Tedros chose to speak of what the CDC represents: "No institution is perfect and continued improvements are always needed, but the work of the US CDC has been invaluable and must be protected."
The statement carried weight precisely because of what it did not say. Tedros did not call for Kennedy's resignation, nor did he join the chorus of scientists urging the Health Secretary to step down. His intervention was a plea for the institution, not a personal attack on the man reshaping it. Yet the implication was clear — the CDC's scientific independence was in jeopardy, and the consequences of its erosion would extend far beyond American soil.
For decades, the CDC has served as a global model, its scientific standards and public health frameworks adopted and emulated by countries around the world. Its partnership with the WHO has flowed in both directions: American expertise and data moving outward, while the CDC gained access to global disease intelligence and early outbreak warnings. That exchange has benefited both the United States and the international community in ways that are difficult to replace.
The broader backdrop makes Tedros's intervention all the more delicate. The Trump administration has been openly hostile toward the WHO, blaming it for failures during the COVID-19 pandemic, and in January ordered the United States to withdraw from the organization entirely. Kennedy himself has called the WHO "moribund." Tedros appeared to be attempting something difficult — separating the CDC's reputation from the larger conflict between Washington and Geneva, arguing that whatever one thinks of the WHO, the CDC itself remains a vital institution whose work belongs to the world. Whether that distinction can hold, as the administration consolidates control over American health policy, remains deeply uncertain.
On Sunday, the director of the World Health Organization issued a carefully worded defense of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, calling for the "protection of public health excellence" at an agency facing internal upheaval and external pressure from the Trump administration's new health leadership.
Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, the WHO's chief, did not name names or wade directly into the controversy swirling around Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the U.S. Health Secretary whose decisions have alarmed public health advocates. Instead, he chose to emphasize what the CDC has meant to the world. "No institution is perfect and continued improvements are always needed," Ghebreyesus wrote on X, "but the work of the US CDC has been invaluable and must be protected."
The timing of his statement was pointed. The CDC has been in flux as the new administration reshapes its leadership and direction. Kennedy, a longtime vaccine skeptic and critic of federal health agencies, has already begun implementing policies that health experts worry could undermine disease surveillance and public health preparedness. Ghebreyesus's intervention suggested that the international health community was watching closely—and concerned about what might be lost.
What Ghebreyesus emphasized was the CDC's global standing. For decades, the agency has functioned as a model that other countries have studied and emulated, adopting its scientific standards and public health frameworks. That reputation, he suggested, was not merely an American asset but a global one. The WHO and the CDC have maintained a long partnership that has worked in both directions: American expertise and data have flowed outward, while the CDC has gained access to global health intelligence, early warnings of disease outbreaks, and lessons learned from health crises around the world. Both the United States and the international community have benefited from this exchange.
Ghebreyesus notably did not call for Kennedy to step down, nor did he echo the growing chorus of public health officials and scientists urging the Health Secretary to resign. His statement was a plea for institutional protection rather than a personal rebuke. Yet the subtext was unmistakable: the CDC's independence and scientific integrity were at stake, and their erosion would have consequences far beyond American borders.
The backdrop to this moment is the Trump administration's deep skepticism of international health institutions. The administration has been openly critical of the WHO's response to the COVID-19 pandemic, and Kennedy has been particularly harsh, dismissing the organization as "moribund." In January, President Trump ordered the United States to withdraw from the WHO entirely—a move that would sever decades of institutional ties and reshape how the U.S. participates in global disease surveillance and health emergencies.
Ghebreyesus's statement, then, was an attempt to separate the CDC from the broader conflict between Washington and Geneva. He was arguing that whatever disagreements exist about the WHO's pandemic response, the CDC itself remained a vital institution whose work transcended politics. Whether that distinction would hold—whether the CDC could be protected while the U.S. withdrew from the WHO—remained an open question as the new administration consolidated power over American health policy.
Citas Notables
The work of the US CDC has been invaluable and must be protected, though no institution is perfect and continued improvements are always needed.— WHO Director General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus
La Conversación del Hearth Otra perspectiva de la historia
Why did Ghebreyesus choose to defend the CDC specifically rather than directly challenge Kennedy or the administration's policies?
Because he was trying to preserve something larger than the immediate political fight. The CDC's credibility is built on decades of scientific work and global partnerships. A direct attack on Kennedy would have been dismissed as institutional self-defense. Instead, he appealed to the CDC's track record and its value to the world.
But doesn't that seem like a soft response to what sounds like a serious threat?
It depends on what you think the threat actually is. Ghebreyesus wasn't denying the danger—he was naming what needed protecting. He was saying: this institution matters too much to lose to politics.
The U.S. is leaving the WHO. How does defending the CDC change that?
It doesn't, directly. But it plants a marker. It says to other countries and to people inside the U.S. government: the CDC is not the same as the WHO. It's worth saving separately.
Is he worried the CDC will be dismantled?
He's worried it will be hollowed out—that its independence will be compromised, that political pressure will override scientific judgment. A dismantled CDC would be obvious. A CDC that still exists but no longer functions as a center of scientific excellence is harder to see and harder to fight.
What happens to global health if the U.S. pulls out of the WHO and the CDC loses credibility?
You lose the connective tissue. The CDC shares data, coordinates responses, trains other countries' health workers. Without it, outbreaks are detected later, responses are slower, and countries are more isolated. The next pandemic becomes harder to manage.