As a medical academic, clinician, and chair of the BMA board of science, I don’t usually comment on the politics of another country. But what’s happening right now in the USA – particularly around healthcare and scientific policy – is too significant, and frankly too alarming, to ignore. The USA plays a huge role in setting the tone for global health policy, funding, and research. When it shifts direction, the rest of the world feels the aftershocks, and those aftershocks are raising serious concerns.
The appointment of Robert F Kennedy Jr as the US secretary of health and human services in February this year was a striking development in its own right. For years, RFK Jr has been a vocal figure spreading vaccine misinformation – misinformation that has directly contributed to falling immunisation rates and a measurable resurgence in preventable diseases. The US has already seen the highest number of measles cases in years, nearly all amongst unvaccinated individuals.(1)
Last month, however, brought the most visible sign yet of American leadership shifts. Dr Susan Monarez, director of the CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention), was dismissed less than a month into her tenure after resisting political interference. (2)
Her removal prompted the resignation of at least four senior CDC leaders, citing erosion of trust and scientific independence as the trigger. (3)
The entire CDC advisory committee on immunization Practices has been replaced with a number of appointees who are openly sceptical of vaccines. Recommendations for COVID-19 vaccination in pregnancy and childhood has been rescinded, and thousands of staff at the CDC and NIH laid off. These institutions, previously the backbone of global health preparedness, are being hollowed out in real time.
These events are not confined to American borders. Vaccine hesitancy is a global problem, and when misinformation penetrates the heart of public health policy in one of the world’s most influential countries, it emboldens anti-science movements everywhere. Last week saw Aseem Malhotra, a prominent vaccine sceptic and friend of RFK Jr, speaking at the Reform UK Conference in Birmingham and drawing completely unfounded links between the Covid vaccine and cancer within our Royal family.
In a speech full of non-sequiturs and inaccurate interpretation of data, there was just enough fact to be convincing. Drawing the conclusion that the small increase in vascular events amongst younger women receiving the non-mRNA vaccine – the reason we stopped using the adenoviral vector vaccine in younger populations – was evidence of a larger conspiracy theory, has certainly created a splash.
And the ripple effect is clearly apparent. Confidence in routine immunisation programmes—hard-won after decades of painstaking global collaboration—is being undermined. For the UK, this means a resurgence of disease such as whooping cough, that are already at a high for this time of year, with the first death occurring in a newborn to an unvaccinated mother only a few weeks ago.
For countries still battling polio, measles, and diphtheria, the consequences are existential. Meanwhile, research infrastructure is also under attack. Targeted withdrawal of NIH funding in the US has created a chilling effect across the scientific community. Long-standing collaborations are being dismantled, and international trials—including one I was personally involved in, offering hope for people living with Long Covid—have been prematurely cut short. When the US withdraws from global science, the damage is not only financial. It erodes trust, continuity, and the infrastructure that sustains discovery across borders. When the US cuts, global science bleeds.
The UK has long benefitted from a 'special relationship' with the USA, and nowhere has this been more productive than in health and science. From the development of COVID-19 vaccines to decades of shared advances in oncology, genomics, and HIV care, these partnerships have transformed patient care worldwide. It is therefore deeply worrying to see this relationship strained by political interference.
The implications extend further still. The US has historically led global health financing, supporting WHO initiatives, multilateral vaccine funds and coordinated responses to emerging infectious threats.(4)
Stripping away this support, combined with rhetoric favouring isolationism, suggest that this leadership role is no longer guaranteed. If the U.S. retreats, others may follow, and the burden will fall hardest on low-resource settings least able to withstand the loss. In countries already destabilised by conflict, pandemic risk or weak health systems, such a shift could be catastrophic.
So, what can we do from the UK? While we cannot directly influence U.S. policy, we can and must respond. We must speak out whenever science is undermined, recommit ourselves to evidence-based practice, and protect the global partnerships that have served patients so well. We must rally high-income nations to reinforce multilateral health efforts through coordinated action and sustained funding. There’s a need to recommit ourselves to various Sustainable Development Goals, including the WHO Immunizations Agenda 2030. And we must support researchers and public health professionals whose work is threatened by political agendas.
The UK’s 10-Year Health Plan makes a clear commitment to strengthening health security and supporting public trust in vaccines, recognising our safety depends on global stability.5 Similarly, the Life Sciences Sector Plan sets out a vision in which the UK can lead in pioneering medical technologies and public health innovation. These strategies must now be more than policy statements — they must be used as vehicles to demonstrate global leadership, to reinforce vaccine confidence at home and abroad, and to reassure allies and partners that science-led collaboration remains non-negotiable.
The past five years have demonstrated beyond any doubt that pandemics respect no borders. Science must not stop at them either. If we want a safer, healthier, and more just world, we need strong, well-financed, and coordinated systems to defend both the structures and the people that make progress possible. At a moment when anti-science voices have reached the heart of one of the world’s most influential health systems, silence is not an option. The UK has the tools and the strategies to lead — and it must seize that opportunity.
David Strain is BMA board of science chair
References:
1) U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Measles cases and outbreaks. Updated 2025.
2) BBC News. CDC director fired weeks into job as top scientists resign. 28 August 2025. Available at: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cwy3zjxy3dwo
3) Reuters. US CDC chief fired after weeks in role, challenges ouster as four top officials resign. 27 August 2025. Available at: https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/us-cdc-chief-fired-after-weeks-role-challenges-ouster-four-top-officials-resign-2025-08-27
4) World Medical Association. Council resolution to uphold the ethical framework of healthcare. 2024. Available at: https://www.wma.net/policies-post/wma-council-resolution-to-uphold-the-ethical-framework-of-healthcare/ 5. UK Government. NHS Long Term Plan / 10 Year Health Plan: Health Security