Reevaluating America’s Pandemic Strategy: Insights from Trump’s Recent Executive Order

On May 5, former President Donald Trump took steps by signing an executive order that forbids future federal funding aimed at gain-of-function research. This decision aligns with a growing national conversation about the shortcomings of the United States pandemic response, which have spanned numerous areas of public health and policy.

As the acute phase of the COVID-19 pandemic recedes, the nation grapples with critical evaluations of its strategies. Discussions now focus on various aspects like lockdowns, vaccines, school closures and public trust. However, a significant lesson remains unlearned. America’s health strategy must not depend on a singular solution during crises. The previous binary approach to managing COVID-19 came at a significant cost, leading to preventable loss of life. Future responses must be markedly more flexible and multifaceted.

Throughout the pandemic, healthcare communication primarily delivered one clear message: get vaccinated or face the virus alone. While vaccination was vital for many, policymakers should have embraced a more nuanced perspective. They failed to acknowledge a fundamental principle of medicine — there is no one-size-fits-all answer. The virus evolved continuously, and responses among patients varied considerably. However, the federal health toolkit remained static and unyielding.

A comprehensive public health strategy is essential now and in the future. Such a strategy should incorporate a variety of medical modalities: not just vaccines, but also antiviral medications, monoclonal antibodies and innovative biologics.

Implementing a Responsive Health System

Health care systems need to be robust and adaptable. They must pivot swiftly, ensuring that patients receive the appropriate intervention based on developing science.

Monoclonal antibodies serve as a pertinent example of where the U.S. failed to capitalize. These therapies, which demonstrated effectiveness in reducing hospitalizations and mortality rates among high-risk individuals, initially enjoyed broad distribution and successful uptake. Top officials, including the former president, utilized these treatments during the pandemic’s height. However, by late 2021 and early 2022, federal regulators curtailed their distribution, labeling them ineffective against emerging variants.

This pivot ignored the adaptability of monoclonal antibodies. As a platform technology, they can be redesigned for different variants and deployed quickly. These treatments are especially critical for individuals who do not respond adequately to vaccines. Yet, over five years since the pandemic began, no monoclonal antibody received full FDA approval for preventing respiratory virus diseases, even after meeting established safety and efficacy standards.

Rethinking Booster Strategies

Simultaneously, public messaging promoted reliance on booster shots, which—despite being an important addition—showed diminishing effectiveness as the pandemic progressed. For example, data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicates that the bivalent booster offered just 37% protection against hospitalizations for adults over 65 after several months. The protection was even less for the immunocompromised, yet effective therapeutic options that could have addressed this gap were removed from consideration.

Advocating for a Comprehensive Treatment Framework

America should adopt an all-encompassing treatment approach, empowering healthcare professionals to tailor recommendations based on individual patient situations. This would ensure that vulnerable populations receive the necessary protection during health crises.

As the nation looks ahead five years post-pandemic, it remains clear that a proactive strategy for deploying flexible and evidence-based therapeutics in public health emergencies is missing. The focus must shift away from solely relying on first-to-market options, emphasizing instead a diversified repertoire of health tools.

This requires supporting agencies like the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority and the National Institutes of Health to develop adaptable medical countermeasures—including antibody platforms, broad-spectrum antivirals, rapid diagnostics and therapeutic RNA technologies. Furthermore, modernizing the FDA’s approval processes to keep pace with scientific innovation is critical. When real-world evidence demonstrates a therapy’s efficacy in saving lives, it is essential for regulators to respond promptly and effectively.

Fostering Legislative Support for Innovation

Congress plays a crucial role by facilitating funding avenues that incentivize versatility among healthcare solutions. Creating programmatic supports could motivate pharmaceutical companies to maintain and innovate a diversified treatment methodology. Establishing a standing procurement mechanism for variant-specific updates, beyond vaccines, would also enhance the nation’s preparatory strength.

Addressing these systemic changes can directly confront one of the most significant losses of the pandemic—the collapse of public trust in American health institutions. This decline occurred largely due to perceptions that key health decisions lacked transparency and did not adequately reflect the diverse needs of the population.

According to a 2022 survey by the Pew Research Center, only 29% of U.S. adults expressed a high level of confidence in medical scientists, a drop from 40% at the pandemic’s outset. Similarly, trust in public health officials experienced a comparable decline.

Restoring Trust through Transparency