The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) made headlines this week by quietly participating in a global vaccine meeting—despite an explicit order from President Donald Trump’s administration prohibiting such collaboration.
The move raised eyebrows, as the U.S. had initiated its withdrawal from the World Health Organization (WHO), citing the agency’s mismanagement of the COVID-19 pandemic and close ties to China.
Defying a Presidential Order
Under Trump’s executive orders, the CDC was barred from engaging with WHO.
However, a spokesperson confirmed that members of the CDC were “actively participating virtually” in a WHO conference focused on flu vaccines.
The event, held in London, began on Monday and also included officials from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
Interestingly, neither agency publicly disclosed their attendance, suggesting they may have sought an exemption from the White House to take part in the discussions.
Why This Meeting Matters
Twice a year, WHO hosts consultations where global health experts analyze flu data and make recommendations on vaccines for the upcoming flu season.
These recommendations are crucial for pharmaceutical companies and regulatory agencies as they guide the development and approval of flu shots worldwide.
This particular meeting focused on flu strains affecting the Northern Hemisphere, while a follow-up session for the Southern Hemisphere is scheduled for September.
Experts voiced concerns that excluding U.S. health officials from these meetings could weaken vaccine effectiveness, given the country’s expertise in tracking flu trends.
The discussions also covered emerging threats like H5N1 bird flu, which has been spreading in the U.S. and could pose a pandemic risk.
The Challenges of Leaving WHO
While Trump announced the U.S. withdrawal from WHO back in January, the process is not immediate.
Congress must approve the move, and the U.S. is required to fulfill its financial obligations to WHO for the current fiscal year.
Additionally, the country must provide a one-year notice before officially exiting.
The administration also placed restrictions on federal health agencies, limiting public communication through at least the end of the month.
Public health experts warned that cutting off dialogue with WHO could hinder America’s ability to respond to global health threats.
“Talking to WHO is a two-way street,” said Dr. Jeffrey Klausner, a public health expert from the University of Southern California.
He explained that ongoing collaboration allows the U.S. to access critical information on emerging diseases, treatments, and tests—knowledge that is essential for protecting Americans at home and abroad.
Fallout Beyond WHO: Cuts to HIV Programs
Trump’s executive actions extended beyond the WHO dispute.
His administration also froze funding for PEPFAR (President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief), a globally recognized initiative launched by President George W. Bush to combat HIV/AIDS.
PEPFAR has provided life-saving medication to over 20 million people and is credited with saving 25 million lives, including 5.5 million children.
The funding freeze, expected to last at least three months, has sparked alarm among health experts.
Beatriz Grinsztejn, President of the International AIDS Society, warned that halting PEPFAR’s funding would effectively end HIV treatment for millions of people.
“If that happens, people are going to die, and HIV will resurge,” she said in a statement.
What’s Next?
With the U.S. still formally involved in WHO for the time being, the CDC’s quiet participation in the flu vaccine meeting signals that some federal health officials are reluctant to cut ties completely.
Whether the Trump administration will take further action against the CDC or if exemptions will continue to be granted remains unclear.
Meanwhile, the fate of critical global health initiatives like PEPFAR hangs in the balance.
If the funding freeze continues, experts fear it could reverse years of progress in the fight against HIV/AIDS.
As political battles over global health policies continue, one question remains: Will science and public health prevail over politics, or will America’s withdrawal from key health partnerships create lasting consequences?