CDC Ordered to Halt WHO Collaboration: What It Means for Infection Prevention and Global Health

World Health Organization logo on a laptop.

(Adobe Stock unknown)

In yet another distressing move of the presidential administration, the abrupt cessation of the US CDC’s collaboration with the World Health Organization (WHO) has sent shockwaves through the infection prevention and control (IPC) community. The directive, issued by CDC official John Nkengasong, instructs all agency staff to stop engaging with WHO in technical working groups, advisory boards, and cooperative agreements—both in-person and virtual—effective immediately.

This sudden policy shift disrupts a critical exchange of data, guidance, and best practices for IPC professionals. WHO serves as a global hub for disease surveillance, outbreak response, and infection control protocols. Cutting off access to WHO’s real-time epidemiological insights weakens the ability of IPC specialists in the US to respond effectively to emerging infectious threats.

Disrupting Global Disease Surveillance

The timing of this stoppage is particularly concerning. Infection preventionists (IPs) rely on WHO collaboration for critical updates on disease outbreaks, including the Marburg virus and mpox in Africa and growing concerns over avian influenza in US livestock. WHO provides vital early warnings and risk assessments that allow IPC teams to prepare and implement necessary precautions. Without direct collaboration, health professionals must rely on secondary sources, increasing the risk of delays and incomplete information in managing outbreaks.

Additionally, the WHO’s role in global infection control extends beyond surveillance. It sets international guidelines for personal protective equipment (PPE), hospital disinfection protocols, and antimicrobial resistance (AMR) mitigation strategies—areas where CDC and WHO have historically worked in tandem. Losing access to this expertise may result in inconsistencies in infection prevention measures across US health care facilities.

The Halt on Public Health Communications

Beyond halting CDC-WHO engagement, the Trump administration has also directed federal health agencies to pause most public communications through the end of the month. This restriction could create further gaps in infection prevention messaging, delaying critical updates on disease outbreaks, vaccination campaigns, and hospital safety measures.

Henry Spratt, Jr, PhD, senior microbiologist and professor for the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga, told Infection Control Today^® (ICT^®),

"Earlier this week, the Trump Administration issued a halt to most external communications for employees of the Department of Health and Human Services. Although most new incoming Administrations enact similar measures for different parts of the government shutdowns like this tend to be short-term. Trump officials have indicated that this current shutdown should be temporary (over by February 1), but there is no guarantee. Some exceptions to the shutdown were noted for critical health and safety reasons, but that any such communications would be subject to administrative review.

"The US CDC is included in the communications shutdown. With the current highly pathogenic H5N1 avian flu outbreak spreading through chicken facilities in the southeast; and with reports of infection by avian flu in other animals, including cattle, domesticated cats, seals, mice, and others, this is not the time to reduce communication between the CDC and other public health organizations across the country. Over the years, a hallmark of US public health systems has been their ability to rapidly spread information on emerging public health threats to health care personnel who need this information.

"We hope this communications halt will be very short-lived, with no needless administrative meddling, allowing public health officials to get back to work monitoring and sharing findings on the avian flu and many other health threats facing our citizens and humans anywhere on earth."

For IPC professionals, timely and transparent communication is the cornerstone of outbreak response. This freeze in information sharing may hinder their ability to educate health care workers, implement rapid response strategies, and maintain public trust in infection control measures.

"The freeze on federal agency communications has paralyzed vital data sharing channels that physicians and infection preventionists rely on,” Matthew Pullen, MD, assistant professor of medicine in the Division of Infectious Diseases and International Medicine at the University of Minnesota Medical School in Minneapolis, Minnesota. told ICT. “One can't help but question the wisdom of such a communications freeze at a time when H5N1 is spreading throughout our livestock and threatening to make a more prominent leap into humans. Data sharing is our early warning system—it allows our front-line medical staff to make the right diagnostic choices and to protect themselves and their community. Hampering this key function of our medical system offers no reward beyond cheap political points."

Implications for Infection Prevention in Health Care Settings

For IPC leaders in hospitals, long-term care facilities, and outpatient settings, this policy shift presents several immediate challenges:

1. Reduced Access to WHO Guidance: IPs may need to seek alternative sources for best practices on emerging threats, potentially leading to inconsistencies in hospital protocols.
2. Delayed Response to Emerging Pathogens: Without WHO collaboration, US health officials may experience delays in detecting and mitigating novel outbreaks, increasing risks for health care-associated infections (HAIs).
3. Vaccine and Treatment Gaps: WHO coordinates global vaccine distribution and treatment guidelines. Limited collaboration could hinder access to critical IPC tools for outbreak containment.
4. Strain on US IPC Infrastructure: Without WHO’s support, US health care facilities may face increased pressure to develop infection control policies independently, straining already overburdened IPC teams.

Moving Forward: What IPC Professionals Can Do

Considering these developments, IPs must take proactive steps to ensure continued vigilance against infectious threats:

• Strengthen Internal Surveillance: Facilities should enhance internal disease tracking and establish direct communication with state and local health departments for outbreak updates.
• Stay Informed through Alternative Channels: IPC leaders should follow global health organizations, such as the European CDC, for additional guidance and best practices.
• Advocate for Transparent Communication: Professional organizations like the Association For Professionals in Infection Prevention Control and Epidemiology and Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America should push for clear, timely information-sharing policies despite the current restrictions.
• Emphasize Standard Infection Control Protocols: Regardless of policy shifts, adherence to fundamental IPC strategies—such as hand hygiene, PPE use, and environmental cleaning—remains essential.

Conclusion

The halt in CDC-WHO collaboration is a significant setback for infection prevention efforts in the US and worldwide. Without seamless information sharing, health care professionals face an uphill battle in managing emerging disease threats. As IPC professionals adapt to this new reality, maintaining vigilance, advocating for transparency, and reinforcing evidence-based infection control practices will be crucial in safeguarding public health.