How MAGA is turning pandemic conspiracy theories into a tool for political revenge and an attack on expertise.
After the Bronze and Iron Ages, moving beyond the Industrial Age, the Age of Speed, and the Information Age, humanity has now found itself in the age of stupidity. The daily agenda—and, at times, the rules—are shaped by “prosto-fascism,” a nationalist-authoritarian movement that has sprung from the cancer of conspiracy theories.
Just recently, I’ve seen discussions about how the Danube is wider on the right bank than on the left, and how those downstream are “stealing” water from those upstream; about how we’re “soon” to go to war—after having gone to war about twenty times since 2022; and about how the COVID plandemic was caused by Fauci and his evil henchmen.
All these conspiracy theories are periodically accompanied by messages in which conspiracy theorists explain to us how they were always right. I wrote about this message type in April 2022, drawing a parallel with religious fundamentalism—both incorporate contradictions and contradictory evidence into their own narrative. Does a politician say something different from what the conspiracy theorists believed? That’s proof that leaders are being controlled or replaced by clones. Will droughts become more frequent, as climatologists have been warning for years? You don’t really believe that, do you? The drought is “artificial”—Gigel discovered the drought button right next to the one for chemtrails, while he was on TikTok. Georgescu said two years ago that water would soon be more expensive than oil, and people laughed at him[1]? But he was using a metaphor—after all, water is very precious now, so he was right.
Fauci's hearing
On July 29, 2026, Anthony Fauci appeared before the U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs for a new hearing on the pandemic, following over 200 testimonials before Congress throughout his career. The goal was obvious to everyone: to “catch” him doing something—anything. Republican Rand Paul, the committee chairman and a vocal opponent of Fauci, had announced the conclusion before the hearing even began: to expose a story of “dishonesty, poor judgment, and arrogance” and to find a way to impose legal consequences for “40 years of abuse of power.”
The MAGA movement’s harassment of Fauci has been well documented since 2020, when his public disagreements with Trump fueled conspiracy theories about the “deep state.” Trump posted #FireFauci, and the rest of the politicians and influencers immediately followed suit. Paul has been repeating since 2021 how Fauci lied; Bannon called for Fauci’s head to be impaled on a stake; Tucker Carlson portrayed him as a con artist involved in creating the pandemic. For four years, the harassment has intensified: Marjorie Taylor Greene said Fauci should be tried for “crimes against humanity”; Republican Senator Tommy Tuberville claimed that Fauci “killed or had something to do with the killing of nine million people”; Benny Johnson called him “the greatest mass murderer in modern history,” with a death toll “greater than Hitler’s,” and so on.
In this coordinated campaign, we find the reason why Fauci was granted a provisional pardon by Joe Biden. Biden explained that he was seeking to protect him from “unjustified and politically motivated” investigations, not to establish any guilt. The same context also explains Fauci’s refusal to answer questions from Paul’s committee, after he had answered them in the other hearings. Anyone who presents these two events as evidence of guilt is being manipulative. The most ridiculous are the MAGA supporters who suggest that repeatedly invoking the Fifth Amendment proves guilt, ignoring the fact that Donald Trump did the same thing more than 400 times in a 2022 deposition, while Eric Trump and Allen Weisselberg invoked it more than 500 times in other depositions. Other MAGA figures, such as Roger Stone, John Eastman, Michael Flynn, and Kenneth Chesebro, also invoked the same right.
Despite the promises, the indictment revealed nothing new. The allegations are that Fauci lied about masks and lockdowns, refused to recognize immunity acquired through infection, exaggerated the effectiveness of vaccines, and imposed social distancing rules without evidence. Perhaps more importantly, it is alleged that Fauci concealed U.S. funding for gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute and conspired to discredit the hypothesis that the virus escaped from a laboratory.
In the most extreme version, these accusations come together to form a single narrative: Fauci funded the experiments that created the virus, covered up the accident, orchestrated the pandemic response, and then lied to Congress to cover his tracks.
The evidence was supposed to come from the diary Fauci kept during the pandemic, from which Paul published over a thousand pages ahead of the hearing. MAGA is exploiting the diary for show, promoting in the public sphere the idea that Fauci had “a bizarre obsession with fame”—a rather strange accusation coming from a movement whose leader sees himself as an emperor, a genius, or the Messiah.
The diary, however, suggests that behind the decision was not just a professional, but a human being who was flattered by the attention he received (he had likely become the most publicized person in the U.S.) and was considering various options in a situation of uncertainty. In fact, it is actually a good thing for professionals—especially when they are in leadership roles—to have room for uncertainty and for thought experiments, “For those stranger hypotheses, for the results that don't seem to add up, for the ideas you come up with at 2 a.m. that you abandon by Tuesday”.
The idea that what appears in a journal proves a lie is absurd, since the role of a journal is to serve as a “sounding board”—that is, to allow you to analyze all possibilities, including the least plausible ones. Furthermore, when it comes to science, changes in position are not evidence of a lie, but rather the very foundation of science: revising conclusions in light of new evidence.
Except that the journal doesn't show not even close to what Paul/MAGA claims.
It was claimed that Fauci “knew” that the mask recommendations had no scientific basis, citing a February 2020 statement—which said that ordinary masks did not effectively protect the wearer—and comparing it to the April recommendation to wear masks. However, what Fauci wrote and what he publicly stated was that masks did protect them the others, not on the wearer, which has been demonstrated (although the effect depends on the type of mask). Attitudes toward mask-wearing were indeed influenced by the fear that medical personnel would run out of supplies, but this argument was also publicly clarified, and the statement in the journal that “perhaps we were too vehement [initially] in saying that masks don’t work” proves neither a lie nor that masks played no role—quite the contrary.
Another accusation is that Fauci allegedly recommended “lockdowns” and then lied (in a 2022 interview) about not having done so. Fauci advocated for restrictive measures, but he did not have the authority to impose “lockdowns”: institutional recommendations were the responsibility of the CDC, and final decisions rested with federal and state authorities. The views expressed in the journal do not reveal a private conviction that differs from his public discourse, but rather a nuanced approach: stricter measures where the virus was spreading rapidly, but also the reopening of schools where the situation allowed it.
In some instances, Paul manipulates the facts through omission. He claims, for example, that Fauci knew and concealed that the virus originated from a laboratory incident (the “lab leak” hypothesis)—rather than a natural source—because the journal states that the Huanan market could have been the “amplifier,” not the initial site of the virus’s emergence. The quote is presented out of context: the rest of the passage states that “however, somewhere the virus jumped from animals to humans.” The journal entry shows that Fauci also considered the lab leak hypothesis but deemed the natural origin more plausible. The report WHO in 2025 says the same thing in cautious terms: the weight of the available evidence points to zoonotic transmission, but the lack of essential data does not allow for the definitive exclusion of a laboratory-acquired incident.
Of great importance are the allegations surrounding “gain-of-function” research, where conspiracy theorists claim to have found the “smoking gun”: SARS-CoV-2 is said to have been created through this type of research, conducted in secret. Paul, however, conflates two different categories: the very broad meaning of the term “gain-of-function,” which can encompass almost any experiment that alters a virus’s properties, and the much narrower category of research on enhanced potential pandemic pathogens, which is subject to evaluation. P3CO. At the time the funding was approved, the NIH determined that the Wuhan project did not fall under the moratorium or the P3CO framework applicable to such research.
That doesn't mean the oversight was flawless. Inspector General of the Department of Health found that the NIH and the EcoHealth Alliance had not effectively monitored the grants and subgrants, missing opportunities to request documents in a timely manner and to impose corrective measures. But GAO report also notes the NIH’s conclusion that the viruses studied were genetically too distant to be the source of the pandemic. Fauci did not write that he suspected a link between the funded research and SARS-CoV-2; on the contrary, the journal records the same genetic incompatibility. We can legitimately criticize the administration of grants without turning oversight deficiencies into evidence that the virus was created and concealed.
Similar accusations also arise in connection with other topics, such as natural immunity, vaccine effectiveness, or social distancing. There are so many manipulative messages on this subject that we would need to write a book to address them all. But let’s take the example of a recent posts by Prof. Gheorghe Piperea, Ph.D., attorney, Member of the European Parliament, in which he shares a message from a MAGA account.
The post claims that, based on messages now made public, “Fauci himself had concerns that the second dose of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccine might be linked to first-trimester miscarriage,” confirming discussions on the topic in various conspiracy-theory social media groups, but that he concealed this fact and recommended vaccination for pregnant women.
But the reality is different. In January 2021, when the exchange of messages criticized by MAGA and others took place, there was not yet a general vaccination recommendation for all pregnant women; however, they were eligible and could choose to get vaccinated after consulting with their doctor. The messages discussed a “theoretical possibility”: the hypothesis that fever, a common side effect of some vaccines, could affect pregnancy, even though monitoring showed no safety concerns. Fauci said publicly in February that the data was still insufficient and that caution was warranted, but also that among the more than 10,000 pregnant women who had been vaccinated, no “red flags” had emerged so far.
In April 2021, the first comprehensive, preliminary study was published, which found no clear safety concerns among vaccinated pregnant women. Anti-vaccine advocates then attempted to reinterpret the results, claiming a miscarriage rate of 80–82%; the false percentage resulted from excluding from the calculation pregnancies that had not yet reached full term at the end of the study period. The CDC’s firm and general recommendation was in August 2021, after additional data were collected, and subsequent studies did not identify any specific risks of miscarriage associated with vaccination.
The messages do not document the concealment of a known danger, but rather the discussion of a hypothesis that was subsequently verified and refuted by the data. This is how easily manipulation is constructed. Because Fauci considers various risks and wants them analyzed, Mr. Piperea concludes that the Facebook groups were right and that, behind the scenes, there is a conspiracy by the “leaders of the plandemic,” who are supposedly criminals.
There are, of course, legitimate criticisms of Fauci and the way the U.S. has handled the pandemic: the initial messaging about masks was too categorical and partly presented a decision to manage stockpiles as a scientific rationale; authorities failed to adequately explain the shifting recommendations and the inevitable degree of uncertainty, fueling the impression that “science” changes its mind arbitrarily; the funding and oversight of gain-of-function research were marked by opaque administrative definitions and internal evaluations that could be improved; the transition from measures against droplet transmission (cloth masks, surface disinfection, plastic partitions) to measures against aerosol transmission (FFP2 masks, ventilation of enclosed spaces) was too slow. These are real issues of transparency, proportionality, and governance, but they do not prove that the pandemic was planned, that the vaccines were ineffective, or that Fauci lied to cover up any wrongdoing.
The hearing, therefore, revealed nothing new about Fauci’s actions; it merely underscored a role that had already been assigned to him—the symbolic scapegoat of the pandemic, the man who was expected to take responsibility simultaneously for the virus, the lockdowns, the vaccines, the school closures, the deaths, the fear, and the loss of trust in institutions.
The crime of lèse-majesté
The first explanation for the harassment of Fauci is simple: he publicly contradicted Donald Trump—repeatedly—even during press conferences in which the president was trying to project the image of a crisis under control. Trump promised that the virus would disappear “as if by magic”; Fauci warned that the epidemic would not just vanish. Trump touted hydroxychloroquine as a potential miracle treatment; Fauci responded that there was no clinical evidence to support that. Trump wanted to reopen the economy quickly and held rallies; Fauci spoke about the risk of “superspreader” events.
În aprilie 2020, când Fauci a spus că intervenția mai timpurie ar fi putut salva vieți, Trump a reacționat prin postarea unui mesaj cu hashtagul #FireFauci. A few months later, he called him “a disaster” and complained that Americans were tired of hearing Fauci and “all those idiots.” The expert had become the man who, simply by presenting a reality at odds with the president’s rhetoric, made Trump look incompetent.
In a normal administration, such disagreements can be treated as normal tensions between medical reasoning and political calculation. In the MAGA world, however, they take on the character of a crime of lèse-majesté. As Orwell explains in 1984, the leader must be infallible, and the MAGA claim is that Trump’s instinct sees more clearly than institutions, the press, and experts combined. The expert who corrects him challenges this form of authority, and the emperor risks being exposed in all his nakedness.
This reasoning is also supported by the broader pattern of Trump’s actions, as he has spoken publicly about “revenge.” A Reuters investigation has documented at least 470 individuals and institutions targeted by the administration as adversaries: former officials, prosecutors, law firms, media organizations, and universities.
The scapegoat
Portraying Fauci as the main culprit behind the pandemic solves another internal problem for MAGA. Trump made a real contribution to accelerating vaccine development through “Operation Warp Speed” and has long boasted about this achievement. At the same time, a significant portion of his electorate has come to view vaccines as useless, dangerous, or part of a global conspiracy. Since the leader cannot be wrong, someone has to absorb the contradiction. That someone is Anthony Fauci.
The resulting formula has the remarkable ability to simultaneously support two incompatible versions of history. If the vaccines saved millions of lives, the credit goes to Trump, who secured them in record time. If the vaccines caused deaths, infringed on freedoms, or were unnecessarily mandated, the blame falls on Fauci.
The move also conveniently whitewashes the Trump administration’s record, whose handling of the pandemic was inadequate. In 2020, the president privately acknowledged that the virus was dangerous, but publicly downplayed it, compared it to the flu, repeatedly promised it would go away, and sent mixed messages. Trump led the federal government, appointed officials, and determined the general direction of the response. Fauci was an influential medical advisor, not the shadow president of the United States; he did not lead the CDC, nor did he single-handedly set the restrictions that were adopted.
Fauci allows Trump to remain, as needed, both the “father of the vaccine” and the opponent of the “vaccine dictatorship”—the leader who handled the crisis exemplarily, but also the victim of experts who allegedly took control of the country. In this narrative, the pandemic is no longer a chaotic event, managed through a series of decisions—sometimes correct, sometimes wrong—made by numerous actors. It becomes the work of a single malevolent figure. It is a simpler explanation, more emotionally satisfying, and, above all, more politically useful.
Back to the “medical dictatorship”
The revival of Fauci's symbolic trial also serves a more immediate electoral purpose: to rally his supporters (rally the troops). The U.S. is approaching the midterms, and the president's popularity has declined, and the Republicans have fallen behind the Democrats in the polls.
The situation isn’t catastrophic—the MAGA base remains largely loyal—but it’s bad enough that they need to get back in the fight. The problem is that traditional issues like the economy and the cost of living aren’t necessarily to the Republicans’ advantage. The harassment of Fauci promises to be a game-changer, shifting public discourse away from the administration’s record and back to grievances related to the pandemic. Masks, school closures, vaccinations, restrictions, and (largely imaginary) censorship are all lumped together under the convenient label of “medical dictatorship.”
MAGA leaders, influencers, and affiliated media outlets are already circulating these accusations on a loop—carefully selected excerpts from Fauci’s diary and messages—all intended to reignite the sentiment that Republican voters have been humiliated, lied to, and persecuted by an alliance of bureaucrats, Democrats, the press, and pharmaceutical companies.
Fauci is the ideal target for this operation. He is instantly recognizable, emotionally tied to the pandemic years, and distant enough from current electoral politics that he can be attacked without significant cost. More importantly, targeting him does not require the party to offer solutions to today’s problems. It is enough to reopen the file on past frustrations and reassure supporters that they were right to be angry.
“Ultra-capitalism”
One argument worth considering regarding the conflict between MAGA and public policy experts is the pursuit of economic growth and profit even in the face of social or human risks.
Elon Musk set an example: he reopened the Tesla factory in Fremont in May 2020, defying an order that was in effect, called the restrictions “fascist,” and demanded that he be arrested if the authorities wanted to intervene. Although Tesla had told employees that they could stay home if they feared for their health, The Washington Post reported that at least three of those who did so were subsequently fired. The company denied that COVID-related absences were the reason for the firings.
Trump had already articulated this line of reasoning with the phrase, “We can’t let the cure be worse than the problem.” In and of itself, the dilemma is real: shutting down the economy had significant negative effects, but the question remains whether the people who keep the economy running were treated as expendable.
The case of the meat industry speaks for itself: slaughterhouses had become major hotspots, with workers laboring in close proximity to one another in enclosed, poorly ventilated spaces. Major processors collaborated with government officials to block interventions by local authorities and secure protection from legal liability. Data obtained by a subcommittee of the House of Representatives indicated at least 59,000 infections and 269 deaths among employees of the five largest companies, and a study from November 2020 shows a strong correlation between the proximity of livestock farms and the incidence of COVID-19 cases.
This widespread phenomenon is evident in the Trump administration’s push for deregulation, which has made the reduction of public protections an end in itself, even before assessing the usefulness of each regulation. In the environmental sphere, standards on emissions and resource extraction are being rolled back; in the labor sector, protections for employees are being relaxed; institutions that oversee financial abuses, competition, or data collection are being weakened or reoriented; and in the case of social media platforms and artificial intelligence, we are seeing significant efforts to limit obligations or liability, not only domestically but also internationally.
The conspiracy of the imbeciles
A deeper motivation stems from the fact that Fauci is seen as a true expert, while MAGA is anti-expertise: sacrificing him would demonstrate to everyone that public policy is no longer based on science, but on the intuitions of political leaders, supported by “experts” who seek justifications for the line they’ve drawn. Symbolically, it is a signal from the true elites who rule the world (sic!), that we have moved beyond the era of expertise, that the brave new world is “liberated” from the “dictatorship of the intellectuals” (who are also liberals for the most part).
The phrase “the conspiracy theorists were right” retroactively declares victorious all those who, during the pandemic, peddled the most ridiculous and often contradictory theories: the virus didn’t exist, but had been created as a biological weapon; vaccines were harmless, but caused serious mutations; the pandemic had been planned, but the deaths were fabricated.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. formulated the new doctrine: “Trust in experts is not a hallmark of science or democracy.” The statement seems trivial—science isn’t based on authority—but it masks a dangerous substitution in which the alternative to experts is choosing the conclusion that sounds best on a podcast. Kennedy invokes scientific uncertainty to place the consensus built on hundreds of studies on the same level as the favored theory of certain influencers.
Tom Nichols describe in The Atlantic, the administration’s attack on civil servants is framed as an attack on the “idea of apolitical expertise”: Trump and his allies cannot tolerate the existence of people who can say—without worrying about their popularity among voters—that the leader is wrong. The apolitical expert is also a practical obstacle, as he or she can document the effects of a decision, refuse to falsify data, and leave an administrative trail of abuse. This autonomy is labeled the “parallel state”—the idea that career civil servants are “undermining” the directives of political leadership.
And the MAGA solution is not to completely eliminate experts, but to replace them with ones who are docile enough to lend a technical veneer to political conclusions. The Trump administration’s messages and actions extend into every field: to the epidemiologist who must correct a statement about vaccines, to the climatologist whose data contradicts energy policy, to the intelligence analyst who refuses to confirm the president’s suspicions. The conclusion is simple: you can remain an expert as long as your expertise stays within the politically prescribed boundaries.
The overall selection of personnel reflects this shift exactly. Pete Hegseth, Mehmet Oz, Kash Patel, and Dan Bongino are not entirely unfamiliar with the fields to which they were appointed, but they have limited executive experience. In the military, Hegseth had commanded a platoon at most, and in civilian life, he had led relatively small nonprofit organizations; Oz had run a specialized medical program, not a hospital or a public health agency; Patel had held several positions in law enforcement, but had not led an investigative unit; Bongino had not worked for the FBI and had not held a leadership position. What set them apart from far more experienced candidates was, above all, their media visibility and loyalty to Trump.
In the healthcare sector, this reverse selection has already moved from the realm of entertainment to that of public policy. Kennedy dismissed all 17 members of the independent committee that formulated U.S. vaccination recommendations and replaced them with individuals who include activists known for their “skeptical” views on vaccination. In March 2026, a federal judge blocked some of the changes and the new appointments, describing the sweeping changes to vaccination policy as “arbitrary and capricious.” The administration continued along the same path, including by rewriting the rules of composition and through a presidential order that has recently been criticized by numerous doctors and researchers.
The same pattern emerges in connection with autism, where the administration is trying to link autism either to vaccines or to the use of acetaminophen during pregnancy, despite the scientific consensus—in fact, just recently there was a new study which show that vaccines do not cause autism.
What's even more ridiculous is that the “Make America Healthy Again” report, touted as the “gold standard in science,” contained at least seven nonexistent studies, numerous incorrect references and interpretations that even the authors of the cited studies have disputed. The White House dismissed the issues as “formatting errors” and subsequently corrected some of the citations. It is a perfect illustration of the new epistemology: medical institutions and journals are accused of being untrustworthy, while a government report that fabricates scientific studies retains its authority because its conclusions are politically convenient.
This mechanism is not limited to health; rather, it aims to rewrite any field in which reality leads to conclusions that are ideologically undesirable or that affect profits. To reduce regulations on the fossil fuel industry, the administration convened a select group of contrarian researchers, and in February 2026, the EPA withdrew its official finding according to which greenhouse gas emissions threaten public health, even though the scientific consensus is clear. When statistics indicated a slowdown in the labor market, Trump fired the head of the relevant office and accused her, without evidence, of falsifying the figures. In education and culture, federal funding, university accreditation, and control over certain museums are being used to eliminate interpretations of race, gender, and American history that have been declared “un-American.” In all these cases, the method is the same: if the facts cannot be changed, the experts and institutions that support them are replaced.
“The conspiracy of fools” is not necessarily a government without intelligent people, nor is it simply the replacement of scholars with the ignorant. It is an alliance between the leader who claims to instinctively understand more than the experts, the influencers who turn certainty into an audience, the conspiracy theorists who provide enemies, and the professionals willing to cloak political conclusions in technical language.
Much ado about nothing
The campaign against Fauci has little chance of achieving its stated goals—to send Fauci to prison for something (anything). “Contempt of the U.S. Congress” carries a maximum penalty of one year in prison, but even with all the power of MAGA behind it, it is unlikely that their efforts will succeed.
The committee led by Rand Paul approved the measure by a vote of 8 to 5, a resolution accusing Fauci of contempt of Congress, and submitted it to the full Senate. According to long-standing parliamentary practice and an analysis by the Congressional Research Service, a criminal complaint must be approved by the plenary session before it is forwarded to the federal prosecutor; as of August 24, 2026, this complaint had not been finalized.
Given the precedents, there are sufficient reasons to expect a creative interpretation of the law from the DOJ. Trump has publicly called for the prosecution of his opponents, and the DOJ has shown a willingness to try, even when the evidence or procedures do not support it. There are, however, some limits. The first cases against James Comey and Letitia James were dismissed because the prosecutor personally chosen by Trump had been appointed illegally. The case involving the alleged vandalism of the Reflecting Pool near the Lincoln Memorial was dropped after even the prosecutors' own documents indicated that the main cause was a poorly executed and rushed renovation.
A potential conviction of Fauci would pertain exclusively to his refusal to testify at the 2026 hearing; it would prove nothing about the origin of COVID-19, vaccines, masks, or the research in Wuhan. The specific criminal issue at stake is narrow, but what matters, as I have shown, is the political stakes: creating images of Fauci in the dock, extracting snippets from old messages, and turning them into content for MAGA pages.
Defying reality
The more important issue, however, is not whether MAGA will succeed in sending an 85-year-old doctor to prison for a few months, but what happens when conspiracy theories, a leader’s hunches, and media success become the criteria for governance. Policies based on false premises do not become effective simply because they are constantly repeated by Joe Rogan and Fox News.
Some of the results of these policies are already evident. Tariffs, based on the false notion that the world had been living off the United States, have led to price increases and instability. In February 2026, the Supreme Court struck down the blanket tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, ruling that the law does not grant the president this authority.
Farmers were hit simultaneously by rising prices for fertilizers and machinery, the loss of some foreign markets as a result of retaliatory measures, and anti-immigration raids that left crops unharvested. The government paid in 2026 out a $12 billion package. to offset some of the damage caused by the trade war, and in June he asked Congress for an additional 11 billion.
The large-scale DOGE initiative, which was intended to eliminate waste, reduced the federal civilian workforce but failed to deliver the promised savings. A report by the Government Accountability Office found inaccurate data and unverifiable calculations; in the case of grants, 96% of the claimed savings could not be confirmed.
In the healthcare sector, the problems are even more serious. Staff cuts and program reductions are weakening the institutions responsible for identifying and mitigating various risks. In June 2026, the United States confirmed its first domestic cases in South Texas of animal infestation with the New World screwworm following the 2016–2017 outbreak in the Florida Keys. The larvae penetrate the animals’ living tissue, and the immune response is limited by the shortage of sterile flies used for pest control; a new U.S. facility is not expected to be fully operational before the end of 2027.
As of August 17, 2026, the largest outbreak of cyclosporiasis in the United States had resulted in 15,716 laboratory-confirmed cases, 828 hospitalizations, and two deaths, compared with 1,180 cases reported between May 1 and August 31, 2025. An outbreak of this magnitude underscores the importance of surveillance programs, such as FoodNet, in tracking foodborne pathogens—including Cyclospora—and quickly identifying links between cases.
The clearest warning remains measles. As of August 20, 2026, the CDC had reported 2,777 confirmed cases, the highest number in the past 35 years; 94% were associated with outbreaks. The decline in immunization rates cannot be attributed solely to Kennedy, but it is hard to imagine a more ill-advised policy than scaling back recommendations at this very time. Trump's order recommends splitting the MMR vaccine into monovalent shots only after such products become available in the U.S., although there is no evidence that splitting the vaccination schedule would increase safety.
In February 2026, The Lancet published an editorial with a blunt title „Robert F Kennedy Jr: 1 year of failure” , which detailed a whole system riddled with problems: experts and advisors fired, a whistleblower removed, and research programs shut down—including those in the fields of mRNA vaccines, diabetes, and dementia. The journal’s conclusion is that the damage caused in a single year could take generations to repair.
An administration that selects people based on loyalty, subservience, and media performance will not automatically make incompetent decisions in every case. There are professionals who stand their ground, courts that rein in excesses, and governments that uphold scientific standards. But the general rule remains hard to avoid: if you penalize independent expertise and promote conspiracy theories, you end up with institutions that are less competent, more vulnerable to corruption, and less capable of acknowledging a mistake before it turns into a crisis.
Over the next two or three years, the most likely effects will not take the form of a single cinematic catastrophe, but rather a cumulative decline. There will be multiple outbreaks of preventable diseases, exacerbated by declining vaccination rates and conflicting recommendations between the federal government and the states. Foodborne and zoonotic outbreaks will be identified later, as the CDC, FDA, and USDA have lost staff, laboratories, and surveillance networks. And the disruption of NIH funding and clinical trials will cause delays that are hard to see right away: treatments that no longer enter testing, researchers who leave, and vaccines that are not developed before the next crisis.
Rand Paul and MAGA can get as upset as they want about reality and accuse Fauci of defying Congress. The problem begins when the opposite happens—when Congress defies reality. This will not go without consequences, and many people will feel some of those consequences for a long time to come.
–
By Ciprian Cucu, expert <Digital Forensic Team>
| This article is an analysis and opinion piece. The ideas and interpretations expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official position of the New Data Academy Association (Academia Noilor Date) – Digital Forensic Team or the organizations with which it collaborates. The analysis is based on public information and sources available at the time of publication and may be updated if new data becomes available. |
[1] Setting aside the discussion of conspiracy theories, Georgescu is simply recycling one of the most overused geopolitical clichés of recent decades. As early as 1995, the World Bank’s vice president warned that the wars of the next century might be fought over water; in 2007, Yale published the analysis “Is Water the Next Oil?”; in 2008, the president of Dow Chemical called water “the oil of this century,” and so on.
