American institutions’ response to the Covid pandemic is an example of what Roger Koppl called “expert failure.” Many Americans feared the virus, especially in its early stages, and welcomed informed advice on how to avoid infection. The federal Centers for Disease Control sought to offer such expertise but failed, insisting more on its presumed authority than on the truth. The public subsequently lost faith in the agency.

We now know, of course, that much of the CDC’s pandemic-era guidance had little scientific basis and brought devastating consequences for ordinary Americans. Masking, social distancing, and sanitizing grocery carts did little or nothing to stop the spread of the virus and imposed huge social costs. Similarly, extended school closures, which the CDC recommended in part to satisfy the nation’s teachers’ unions, were a shameful and tremendously costly decision, based on shoddy science. Indeed, children were the least likely of all demographic groups to acquire or transmit the Covid virus.

The CDC not only imposed spurious guidance but also vigorously resisted advice from nongovernment experts on how to reduce the virus’s spread and potential death toll. Discovery in the case of Murthy v. Missouri, now pending at the Supreme Court, reveals how highly placed federal officials, including Anthony Fauci, allegedly attempted to destroy the careers of the civilian scientists who authored the Great Barrington Declaration. The declaration, an open letter released in October 2020, counseled the CDC to reject its initial approach of seeking to protect the entire population and instead focus on protecting the over-65 population. While such a response would likely have saved more lives than the CDC’s methodology, social-media companies at the advice of the White House suppressed some of the declaration authors’ content, damaging their careers and reputations. Indeed, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals last October enjoined the Biden administration from “coerc[ing] or significantly encourag[ing] social-media companies to remove, delete, suppress, or reduce, including through altering their algorithms, posted social-media content containing protected free speech.”

The CDC’s failure to provide reliable and unbiased expert direction, and the agency’s repeated dishonesty and corruption, led to collapsing trust in the public-health establishment. Indeed, some surveys suggest that over half of the population would not trust the CDC in the future. And despite the Biden administration’s continued efforts to promote vaccine uptake, most Americans have chosen to ignore government efforts to reduce what officials believe is the virus’s possible resurgence. Only about 20 percent of Americans are fully vaccinated against Covid, according to CDC statistics as of mid-February, and fully 70 percent of Americans in a recent survey reported being very unlikely to get, or uncertain about getting, the vaccine.

The agency knows that it has lost public trust, and it has two efforts underway to restore its reputation. First, the CDC has sought to identify more nascent communicable diseases as having the potential to become pandemics. Consider, for example, the CDC’s recent efforts to make monkeypox a national issue, and the outsize media attention paid to a handful of new polio, measles, tuberculosis, and leprosy cases. This posture makes the agency appear to be communicating dangers earlier than it did during Covid. And, recalling the central role it played in the nation’s consciousness during the Covid pandemic, the agency apparently believes that it can leverage public fear to revive its authority.

In such efforts, however, the agency and the public-health establishment are reverting to ideological habits that previously squandered the public’s trust. Prominent public-health experts have hardly discussed these illnesses in the context of the 8 million illegals who have entered this country on the Biden administration’s watch without being examined for communicable diseases. Epidemiologists in both government and academia have stood largely silent as millions of “newcomers” illegally enter the United States uninoculated for diseases that, in the blink of an eye, could become American pandemics.

The agency’s second move to regain public trust, a supposedly thoroughgoing self-directed reform effort, is hardly more compelling than the first. Over the past four budgets, the White House has approved more than $725 million for the CDC’s “data modernization” project, apparently the focus of its internal reforms. One might ask why the CDC’s data need “modernizing.” Consider that in 2024, the agency boasted on its website that it would soon have its first-ever public-health data strategy—after it finished organizing the newly created Office of Public Health Data, Surveillance and Technology. Shouldn’t these have been long-standing areas of interest and competency for an organization tasked with monitoring the health of Americans? Was the agency waiting for Covid before it could step into the modern world? What does this say about the agency’s culture? Perhaps it demonstrates that the CDC considers experts, rather than data, the most effective tool to monitor the public’s health.

The nation awaits the results of the CDC’s two-year reform plan, “Moving Forward.” Given how the agency handled the pandemic and how it’s conducting its supposed reforms, there’s reason to fear that the CDC is more interested in credentialing new experts than conducting objective research. And if that suspicion proves out, then the CDC can forget about regaining the public trust.

Photo by ERIC BARADAT/AFP via Getty Images


City Journal is a publication of the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research (MI), a leading free-market think tank. Are you interested in supporting the magazine? As a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, donations in support of MI and City Journal are fully tax-deductible as provided by law (EIN #13-2912529).

Further Reading

Up Next