A Resolute Framework: 5 Questions to Evaluate CDC Political Interference
President Trump exerts undue influence on the CDC through politicized political appointments that undermine public trust in the institution. Mainly through Nina Witkofsky and Trey Moeller, senior staff to Dr. Robert Redfield, another controversial political appointee. They are reportedly exerting pressure from the White House to issue guidance contradictory to established public health science. This interference is the latest in a series of politicized reports based on questionable science reminiscent of regimes like Brazil or North Korea.
We know that in countries where politics trumps sound public health guidance, fatalities increase, and health outcomes decrease overall. As the quality of CDC guidance is inconsistent, RSG developed a framework to analyze new CDC decisions to determine whether they are likely to result from sound policy or bad politics…
A Resolute Framework - 5 Questions
When the CDC issues new guidance or policies in the Trump era, we recommend that our clients ask these five questions:
1) What do outside experts say?
Many outside epidemiologists and public health experts are telling the truth on social media. Many of our fights are over facts established at the beginning of the pandemic, and peer-reviewed research is readily available. So if these reliable experts are critical of a guideline, what are they saying?
2) What did the administration say?
The President or someone close to him will often take to Twitter to make heretical statements as a trial balloon preceding a new policy. Usually, his demand is clear from the post, and they threaten a public health expert or institution. Be suspicious of the timing of this administration's public statements.
3) Was there previous guidance and What did it say?
If there was previous guidance, was it previously accurate or inaccurate, according to the medical community. Is the change a technical update or a substantive one? Some updates happen because doctors have learned better ways to treat the virus. Others happen following a presidential temper tantrum. Was there previous guidance? If not, how long have outside experts known the truth?
4) What are other countries doing?
The U.S. does not operate in a bubble, and it has had the worst pandemic response of any developed nation. Other countries grappled with the problems the U.S. now faces, and every one of them handled it better than the U.S.
5) Does this guidance conflict with what we know is true?
Answering the first four questions will implicitly answer the fifth. If the new guidance is opposed to the medical community's vocal majority, and if other countries have tried similar policies, we will know whether the new CDC policy is honest or politically motivated. Public confidence in the CDC has significantly diminished since April:
ANTICIPATED LONG-TERM IMPACTS
We know from the experience in countries like Brazil that political interference into public health institutions leads to resignations of career public officials and has a chilling effect on the bureaucracy, permanently damaging the institution by draining experienced and nonpartisan employees.
