A former high-ranking public health official under Donald Trump sounded the alarm on the former president's potential return to the White House.
Dr. Rick Bright, a virologist and former head of the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, published an op-ed in the New York Times describing the former president's failures during the Covid-19 pandemic and how those mistakes would be magnified in a possible second term in office.
"I witnessed firsthand how the Trump administration systematically undermined America’s health infrastructure," Bright wrote. "My experience during his time in office, which led me to file a whistle-blower complaint, provides a stark warning of what a second Trump presidency could mean for public health."
ALSO READ: Busted: Bundy collaborator fueled FEMA conspiracy in Hurricane Helene aftermath
Bright and other public health experts warned administration officials in early 2020, as the virus began its spread, about critical shortages in medical supplies and the urgent need for a coordinated national response, but those recommendations were "not just ignored — they were actively suppressed."
"When I opposed the administration’s reckless promotion of the widespread use of hydroxychloroquine as a Covid-19 treatment I faced swift retaliation," Bright wrote. "I was removed from my position, silenced and sidelined at a time when experienced leadership was crucial. This wasn’t just a personal injustice; it was a microcosm of the administration’s broader war on scientific expertise."
Those failures have roots in the early days of the Trump administration, when budgets proposed devastating cuts to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health and the National Cancer Institute, and somewhat smaller cuts to the Food and Drug Administration.
"Now Mr. Trump seeks to return to power with a potentially more aggressive agenda to reshape our health institutions," Bright wrote. "Proposals supported by conservative initiatives like Project 2025 aim to split the C.D.C., stripping its ability to issue critical vaccine guidance, weaken the F.D.A.’s approval processes for key medical products and further slash N.I.H. funding. Some of these proposed changes, should Mr. Trump decide to embrace them, would require congressional approval."
"Yet a determined president could do a great deal of damage to our public health infrastructure through the installation of loyalists in key positions, redirection of funds and agency restructuring via executive actions," Bright added.
Political considerations frequently disrupted scientific communications undermining public health messaging in Trump's first term, Bright said, and Project 2025 explicitly calls for sidelining experts and handing more authority to political loyalists as new infectious disease threats loom.
"As Election Day grows near, the United States is at a crossroads: We can either fortify our public health infrastructure or watch it deteriorate; embrace scientific expertise or yield to dangerous misinformation; prepare for future health crises or leave ourselves vulnerable," Bright wrote. "The choice we make will determine our nation’s ability to face the next pandemic — which is inevitable — and address the daily health challenges of millions of Americans."
"For the well-being of our nation, the safety of our loved ones and the security of future generations, we must reject Donald Trump and any other candidate who threatens to undermine our public health institutions," he added.