Amidst the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, people worldwide faced extreme isolation and uncertainty as the virus spread rampantly, and the government gradually enacted policy to limit exposure. Nations were underprepared for a global pandemic.

As avian influenza, or “bird flu,” cases rise nationwide, many closely monitor the governmental decisions in lieu of recent public health crises. Many are left questioning the ramifications of recent actions intended to transform public health and minimize federal spending.

The sheer speed of the public health overhaul, lack of organization and corresponding chaos, should not go unquestioned. It may shed light on the Trump Administration‘s underlying intentions in radically changing public health: It wants people to fear. It wants people to fear its power and authority so that it can get away with increasing its own sphere of influence at the expense of the masses.

Based on recent actions, such as the handling of the bird flu, its supposed objectives are either a facade or functionally flawed, and they’re consequently hurting the common people. Michael Bedros, a biology major at Moorpark College, commented on the administration‘s recent actions and their relation with the bird flu.

“If you want to minimize spending, we definitely do not target things like education or health,” said Bedros. “You could target things that don’t impact people directly, definitely not education or health … If [the bird flu] does escalate, then people will be blaming the administration.”

70 people have been infected with the avian bird flu since documentation in late April 2024, with one human death from the infection, according to the CDC in an update on March 19, 2025. While the bird flu has yet to have a significant impact on human mortality, it has notably affected livestock, comprising both poultry and dairy cows. Sustenance prices have since skyrocketed.

In an attempt to combat increasing egg prices, Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins announced in late February 2025 a $1 billion five-step process to limit the decimation the bird flu has had on poultry farms, according to Scientific American. A decrease in poultry death along with a reduction in public fear may diminish prices.

“American farmers need relief, and American consumers need affordable food,” said Rollins in an article published by The Wall Street Journal. “To every family struggling to buy eggs: We hear you, we’re fighting for you and help is on the way.”

While the Trump Administration believes it has a plan to limit the severity of the avian bird flu, its actions are certainly not free from criticism. Amidst the sudden actions by the Elon Musk-headed Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to minimize federal spending, many research teams were cut.

Part of the aftermath of these rapid decisions was the accidental firing of the primary avian bird flu research team in late February. The Trump Administration proceeded to try to reinstate the crew, with some delays in rehiring, according to AP News.

Moorpark College biology major Andrés Houser shared his thoughts on the matter.

“It’s sad that Trump decided to take these cuts,” said Houser. “I mean, obviously there’s a lot of funding going into the wrong places with[in] our government, but this is something that he should have probably done a little more research in. He was really quick to jump the gun.”

The primary research team is just one of many groups facing the effects of the public health overhaul as the Trump Administration aims to reduce the allocation of federal funds and hence diminish the national debt. As recently as March 14, 2025, the administration cut around $400 million in research grants from Columbia University, according to Nature.

“Obviously a lot of research comes out of these R1, top universities, and you can’t have that without funding,” said Houser. “I feel that’s definitely … a mistake — cutting the funding towards these prestigious universities that have done so much for [society].”

Recent state legislation follows a similar trend as the federal government in terms of decreasing financial assistance for universities. Gov. Gavin Newsom recently proposed around $270 million in budget cuts enacted upon the University of California (UC) school system, according to The Daily Bruin. These budget cuts, which will have a range of impacts, may also affect university research.

“There will definitely not be as much funding [if I pursue research],” said Houser, who considers attending a UC school. “It’ll definitely be more privatized, and there’ll have to be a lot more money coming out-of-pocket than funding from the government. It’ll definitely be tougher for not just medical but also pharmaceutical [research].”

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., secretary of Health and Human Services has significant influence over many U.S. public health-related decisions. In early March, Kennedy ordered that the National Institute of Health (NIH) provide a more detailed review of certain health communication documents, according to ProPublica.

Some of the documents put on the NIH‘s radar have references to specific keywords, including but not limited to vaccines and autism, according to ProPublica. Correlated with increased time spent reviewing documents, I believe this may hinder research from reaching the publication stage in a timely manner.

While there are worries about the future of U.S. public health headed by Kennedy, some are optimistic about him creating real change in healthcare.

“I know that Trump, in his last administration, he did say many times he was going to come up with a plan for the U.S [in respect to healthcare], but that never came to fruition,” said Houser. “But I think that [Kennedy] … I hope that [Kennedy] will do something significant. It’ll have a lasting impact.”

The potential lasting impact of these societal changes may even have repercussions abroad. I believe it could potentially exacerbate public health issues within the country that extend to global health issues abroad.

In late January 2025, the U.S. under the Trump Administration officially signed to leave the World Health Organization (WHO). The U.S., having been a founding member of the organization has, alongside other countries involved, helped to minimize global health issues, such as smallpox and polio, according to WHO.

“We hope the [U.S.] will reconsider and we look forward to engaging in constructive dialogue to maintain the partnership between the [U.S.] and WHO, for the benefit of the health and well-being of millions of people around the globe,” stated WHO in an official comment directed at the U.S. government.

The Trump Administration views this departure as yet another way to distance itself from supposed unnecessary spending, increase governmental efficiency and reallocate funds, all the while minimizing the cost necessary to do so. The reality, however, is that this radical action is distancing the U.S. from its own closest allies more than it is distancing itself from any unnecessary expenditures.

No matter one’s political ideologies, no matter one’s gender identity, no matter one’s occupation, religion or salary, everyone faces uncertainty over public health, higher education and the very future of this country. These are the uncertainties that many American people may fear.

They fear isolation, whether that be from the next global pandemic as avian bird flu cases rise, or isolation from other countries as the U.S. draws out of WHO and becomes a more hyper-individualistic nation. They fear potential life-changing research never reaching publication under new NIH policy.

But most of all, people fear each other. A dominant, collective American people is becoming further divided by two major political groups — the Democrats and the Republicans. This leaves people to question whether the motivation to revamp public health is the true motivation at all, or if it could be a ploy for one major political group to gain the upper hand over the other.