Is Trump Ready for Bird Flu?
Bird flu has now spread to cow herds across the country, led to the euthanization of tens of millions of domesticated poultry, sickened dozens of people in the United States, and killed one. The virus is not known to spread between humans, which has prevented the outbreak from exploding into the next pandemic. But the silence raises the question: How prepared is Trump's administration if a widespread bird-flu outbreak does unfold? The administration reportedly plans to name Gerald Parker as the head of the White House's Office of Pandemic Preparedness and Response Policy, which was created in 2022 by Congress and is charged with organizing the responses of the various agencies that deal with infectious diseases. (I reached out to both Parker and the White House; neither replied.)
If the president names him to the post, the appointment might be the least controversial of any of Trump's health-related picks: Parker is an expert on the interplay between human and animal health who served in the federal government for roughly a decade. But confronting bird flu—or any other pandemic threat—in this administration would require coordinating among a group of people uninterested in using most tools that can limit the spread of infectious disease.
Trump's pick to lead the CDC, David Weldon, has questioned the safety of vaccines, and Jay Bhattacharya, the administration's nominee to lead the National Institutes of Health, vehemently opposed COVID shutdowns. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., an anti-vaccine conspiracy theorist who likely will be installed as the head of the Department of Health and Human Services in the coming days, has implied that Anthony Fauci and Bill Gates have funded attempts to create a bird-flu virus capable of infecting humans, and that past threats of flu pandemics were concocted by federal health officials both to inflate their own importance and to pad the pockets of pharmaceutical companies that produce flu vaccines.
Many of Trump's health appointees are united in their view that the U.S. overreacted to COVID. They—and plenty of Americans—argue that measures such as masking, lockdowns, and vaccination mandates were unnecessary to respond to COVID, or were kept in place for far too long. Faced with another major outbreak, the Trump administration will almost certainly start from that stance.
One way or another, Trump is likely to face some sort of public-health crisis this term. Most presidents do. Barack Obama, for instance, dealt with multiple major public-health crises, each brutal in its own way. Zika didn't turn into a pandemic, but it still resulted in more than 300 American children being born with lifelong birth defects. Ebola, in 2014, killed only two people in the U.S., but allowing the virus, the death rate of which can be as high as 90 percent, to freely spread across America would have been catastrophic. In 2009 and 2010, swine flu led to more than 12,000 deaths in the U.S.; roughly 10 percent of the victims were under 18. Even if bird flu does no more than it already has, it'll still cause a headache for the White House. Bird flu continues to wreak financial havoc for farmers, which is then trickling down to consumers in the form of higher prices, particularly on eggs.
Step by step, the U.S. keeps moving closer to a reality where the bird-flu virus does spread among people. Last week, the U.S. Department of Agriculture reported that cows have now contracted the variant of the virus that was responsible for the recent fatal case in the United States. That means the chances of humans catching that strain are now higher than they were: Many recent human cases have been in dairy farmworkers. As cases of seasonal flu increase too, so does the chance of the bird-flu virus gaining mutations that allow it to spread freely between humans. If both viruses infect the same cell simultaneously, they could swap genetic material, potentially giving the bird-flu virus new abilities for transmission.
Parker clearly understands this danger. Last year, he spoke to USA Today about the potential for the virus to mutate and change the outlook of the current epidemic. He also wrote on X that 'federal, state, and private sector leaders need to plan for challenges we may face if H5N1 were to make the fateful leap and become a human pathogen.' How much leeway the Trump administration will give Parker—or whoever does run the pandemic-preparedness office—to keep the U.S. out of calamity is another matter.
Plenty of public-health experts have come to look back at the coronavirus pandemic and regret certain actions. Should bird flu worsen, however, many of the same tools could become the best available options to limit its toll. Parker, for his part, expressed support during the worst parts of the pandemic for masking, social distancing, and vaccinations, and although he said in 2020 that he doesn't like lockdowns, his social-media posts at the time suggested he understood that some amount of community-level social distancing and isolation might be necessary to stop the disease's spread. How eager the Trump administration will be to use such tools at all could depend on Parker's ability to convince his colleagues to deploy them.
The White House pandemic-response office was set up to play air-traffic control for the CDC, the NIH, and other agencies that have a role amid any outbreak. But having a job in the White House and a title like director of pandemic preparedness does not guarantee that Parker will be able to win over the crew of pandemic-response skeptics he will be tasked with coordinating. And his job will be only more difficult after Trump sniped at the purpose of the office, telling Time in April that it 'sounds good politically, but I think it's a very expensive solution to something that won't work.'
Although Trump appears to have thought better of dissolving the entire office, its director can't really succeed at fulfilling its purpose without the president's support. The only thing that could make persuading a group of pandemic skeptics to care about an infectious-disease outbreak more difficult is your boss—the president of the United States—undercutting your raison d'être. Parker has some sense of the enormity of the job he'd take on. In 2023, he tweeted, 'Pandemic Preparedness, and global health security have to be a priority of the President and Congress to make a difference.' In 2025, or the years that follow, he may see firsthand what happens when the country's leaders can't be bothered.
Article originally published at The Atlantic
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


New York Post
10 minutes ago
- New York Post
The Post's Eric Adams support: Letters to the Editor — Aug. 13, 2025
The Issue: The Post's editorial urging President Trump to endorse Mayor Adams for re-election. Wasn't it the New York Post that featured photos of Mayor Adams greeting busloads of illegal immigrants at Port Authority ('The Post says: Endorse Adams Apple,' Editorial, Aug. 8)? Have you already forgotten about the billions of dollars that taxpayers shelled out to house, feed and educate illegals? Advertisement Have you forgotten about all the corrupt politicians Adams surrounded himself with in his administration? One would think The Post would do the right thing for New Yorkers and instead ask President Trump to endorse Curtis Sliwa. Ruth Adler The Bronx Advertisement The Post's support for Eric Adams illustrates a lack of innovation. New York City is primed for a change, which requires the insights of Sliwa. Any other candidate inhabits a 'business as usual' mentality. Advertisement God willing, enough people will stop the madness and give Sliwa his due. Jonathan Kiddrane Queens I urge all New Yorkers to get behind Adams. Advertisement I believe that he cares about New York City and is well aware of the mistakes he has made in his first term. Above all else, he cares about the quality-of-life issues in all five boroughs. He does not want to brainwash us, seize property, close family businesses or make our neighborhoods less safe. Whether you live in Chinatown, Little Italy, Forest Hills, Harlem or elsewhere, Adams will advocate for you. Ken Karcinell Hewlett Adams is the greatest sleazeball since Jimmy Walker during the Roaring '20s. Yes, Andrew Cuomo is distasteful and Zohran Mamdani is over the moon, but going to bat for Adams indicates rabid insanity. Advertisement Doug Brin Brooklyn Has the New York Post lost its mind? How, for the love of God, could you ask President Trump to endorse Adams for re-election? Advertisement Adams has been a complete disaster since his first day in office. Cuomo and Mamdani — the despicable communist — are even worse. Sliwa is the only viable candidate with a chance to bring some semblance of sanity back to our once-great city. John Lucadamo Advertisement Westchester County While The Post raises legitimate questions about Cuomo's record, endorsing Adams overlooks how many of his policies resemble those of Mamdani and Cuomo. Trump would be wise to refrain from any endorsements to avoid involvement in the federal scrutiny the next mayor will likely face over a range of ludicrous campaign proposals. Michael Mulhall Advertisement Moseley, Va. The Issue: The possible cancellation of 'The Howard Stern Show' following a dropoff in listeners. Howard Stern lost his edge years ago when he suddenly went woke ('Bye bye booey: Staff coasting,' Aug. 10). For most of his career, he eschewed good taste and battled critics, going out of his way to be politically incorrect. The more outrageous he was, the funnier he got, and that earned him a tremendous following. But, as Howard's longtime fans know, he is driven by money. When Stern realized his brand of humor could get him canceled, he became a soft liberal. Bill Calvo Brooklyn This is not the old Howard Stern; he is kissing up to the targets, like the woke people he once hated. I have a better opinion of Stern staffers Gary Dell'Abate and Fred Norris than I do of Stern. He shouldn't be offered any extension of his show. The time to pull the plug is now. Sheldon Fosburg Staten Island Want to weigh in on today's stories? Send your thoughts (along with your full name and city of residence) to letters@ Letters are subject to editing for clarity, length, accuracy, and style.


New York Post
10 minutes ago
- New York Post
Just say no to Big Dope — and its push for even more legal marijuana
Will more marijuana use make America a better place? Not many who've seen and smelled what legalizing the drug has done to cities like New York, Washington, DC, and San Francisco would say so. Yet President Donald Trump is contemplating a change to marijuana's federal classification that would make it easier to buy and more profitable to sell. The pot industry — Big Dope — is heavily invested in getting its product recategorized from a Schedule 1 to a Schedule 3 drug. Industry leaders ponied up for a $1-million-a-plate Trump fundraising dinner earlier this month to hear what the president had in mind, according to The Wall Street Journal. The president should ignore the well-funded cannabis lobby: What matters is what more and cheaper marijuana will mean for ordinary Americans. Twenty-four states have legalized recreational use of the drug, despite the ugly results experienced by the first state to do so. Taking advantage of high Democratic turnout the year of President Barack Obama's re-election, activists passed a Colorado ballot measure to make pot legal back in 2012. Legalization didn't take effect until 2014, but by 2022 marijuana use in Colorado and other states that had then legalized was 24% higher than in states where recreational use remained illegal. A study by the South Korean scholar Sunyoung Lee published in the International Review of Law and Economics this year examines what's happened to crime levels in US states that legalized pot. Lee reported his findings 'do not yield conclusive evidence supporting a reduction in crime rates after legalizing recreational marijuana. Rather, they underscore notable positive associations with property crimes and suggest potential correlations with violent crimes.' The marijuana lobby claims that drug prohibition, not the drug itself, drives violent crime. That would be a bad argument even without evidence like Lee's, which suggests legal weed makes crime worse. After all, any profit-driven criminal enterprise could be shut down by simply legalizing the crime in question. If bank robbery were legal, bank robbers wouldn't need to use guns. If auto theft were legal, carjackers wouldn't have to use force, and there wouldn't be any violence associated with black-market chop shops because the chop shops would all be as legal as the commercial marijuana industry is today. Legalize everything Tony Soprano does, and Tony won't have to get rough — but he'll only do more of what he was doing before. Libertarians who argue for legalizing drugs to stop drug violence are closer than they realize to the radical leftists who argue property crimes shouldn't be prosecuted. The psychology is the same: They sympathize with the people who make it harder to live in a civilized society and reject society's right to defend its rules. There are downsides to laws against marijuana, just as there are costs to protecting private property and citizens' bodily safety. But the costs are well worth paying when the alternative is passivity in the face of aggression, handing your belongings or your life over to any thug who makes a demand. For a time marijuana legalization was sold to voters as just a matter of leaving people alone to consume whatever they want in private, without bothering anybody else. Yet millions of Americans have now lived long enough with pot legalization, or the non-enforcement of laws still on the books, to know the pot lobby perpetrated a fraud. What the country has actually had to deal with is pot smoking so rife in public that the offensive smell — and the sight and sounds of intoxication — smacks you in your face. It's hardly different from dope-users blowing smoke right in your eyes on the street. That's not the worst crime in the world — but neither is shoplifting, and there's no reason to tolerate that, either. Tolerating such things only breeds more tolerance for worse abuses, which is what has led progressives to treat even violent criminals with the utmost leniency. Two scenes in the suburbs of DC convinced me pot tolerance has gone too far. First was seeing an African-American bus driver, on a blazing hot summer day, order two dope-smoking teens to put out their joints and be aware there were children around. To the extent our cities work at all it's because of working-class men like him — and the rest of us have to decide whether we're on his side or the punks'. A year or so later I watched a young mother one bright October afternoon hold her small daughter's hand as they walked through a neighborhood reeking of high-potency pot. The multibillion-dollar weed industry got to advertise its product to a little girl about 4 years old that day. It's an industry that notoriously even sells its drug in candy form, as 'gummies.' Our cities and towns shouldn't be open-air drug dens — and Trump shouldn't let a lobby get high off of making Americans' lives worse. Daniel McCarthy is the editor of Modern Age: A Conservative Review and editor-at-large of The American Conservative.


New York Post
10 minutes ago
- New York Post
Mamdani's ‘war' against Trump spells bad news for NYC
Zohran Mamdani's 'Five Boroughs Against Trump' tour makes oodles of sense for him — but only at the expense of the rest of the city. Not just because the last thing New Yorkers need is a mayor seeking a war with the White House, since they'd inevitably be the cannon fodder. More: Centering the mayoral debate on countering President Donald Trump encourages everyone to ignore all the issues Mamdani doesn't want voters thinking about, like how to make the streets and subways safe, the public schools functional and the local economy growing. It also prevents any focus on his privilege and inexperience, his cop-hatred, his obsessive loathing of Israel and the unworkability of pretty much his entire 'positive' agenda. Truth is, it mainly appeals to the vanity of his Democratic Socialists and their cheerleaders: Already imagining that their guy's surprise victory (in a Democratic primary) puts America on the brink of a new socialist era, they now get to also dream of Mamdani somehow turning the tide against Bad Orange Man. Except that he can't 'stand up' to Trump (beyond boring bits like the legal efforts to claw back improperly canceled grants that Mayor Eric Adams already has under way). Indeed, no mere mayor of any city can. Check the US Constitution: You'll find no mention of a mayoral power to check the president, Congress or for that matter the Supreme Court. And in the real world, a Mayor Mamdani declaring war on Trump would entail setting City Hall on fire and expecting the White House to burn down. New York City has zero leverage over the federal government, except perhaps 1) Wall Street's money — which socialists can't direct except via their trust funds — and 2) whatever power the national media has left — when the media's already done its damnedest to stop Trump. The feds, meanwhile, can screw New York eight ways to Sunday, starting with cutting back on the hundreds of billions it sends our way. Nor can local government 'withhold' New Yorkers' taxes, as some whiz kids in the Legislature suggest. State Attorney General Tish James, Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg and a few complacent judges have already waged their worst lawfare against Trump, while then-Mayor Bill de Blasio did what he could against the Trump businesses that remain here. 'Trump-proofing' the city — the new tough talk from progressives around the country — is an empty threat, too: Federal law almost always trumps state and local ordinances. Playing tough guy and talking big is sure to give Mamdani lots of outraged outtakes for his social media. But he is writing checks that the people of NYC will have to pay.