Fifteen Democratic governors, representing states where roughly one in three Americans reside, have launched a sweeping public health alliance in a pointed response to mounting turmoil at federal agencies under the Trump administration. Announced on October 15, 2025, the Governors Public Health Alliance is designed to serve as a centralized hub for monitoring disease outbreaks, establishing evidence-based public health policy guidance, preparing for pandemics, and procuring vital vaccines and other medical supplies. This move, which includes high-profile states like California, New York, and Illinois, underscores a dramatic shift in the nation’s approach to public health coordination—and highlights the growing divide between state and federal leadership.
The alliance’s formation comes at a time when the federal public health system, particularly the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), has been rocked by significant personnel changes and funding cuts. According to The Washington Post, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has overseen the dismissal of top CDC officials, slashed research budgets, altered vaccine recommendations, and replaced the leadership of a key federal immunization committee with less experienced individuals. These dramatic changes, paired with a federal shutdown that saw hundreds more HHS employees let go, have left many public health experts and state leaders deeply concerned about the nation’s preparedness for future health crises.
Illinois Governor JB Pritzker, a leading voice in the alliance, minced no words in his criticism of the federal government’s recent direction. “When the federal government abandons science for conspiracy theories, slashes Medicaid, and undermines vaccine integrity, states must stand united to defend the facts,” Pritzker declared in a statement. His remarks echoed the frustration of many Democratic governors, who see the alliance as both a practical necessity and a symbolic rebuke of what they describe as the federal government’s retreat from science-based decision-making.
California Governor Gavin Newsom, whose state joined the alliance alongside 13 others and Guam, was equally direct. As reported by The Los Angeles Times, Newsom described the partnership as a “direct rebuke” to the Trump administration and Secretary Kennedy’s “dramatic overhaul of the nation’s public health systems.” Newsom and his peers are responding not just to policy disagreements but to what they view as a fundamental threat to the nation’s ability to respond to public health emergencies.
The alliance is coordinated by the Governors Action Alliance, a nonprofit that previously organized Democratic-led states in defending abortion access following the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision to overturn the constitutional right to terminate pregnancies. This latest initiative, however, goes even further—encroaching on what has traditionally been the federal government’s role in coordinating the country’s response to disease threats and collaborating with global health authorities.
Connecticut Governor Ned Lamont, reflecting on the early days of the coronavirus pandemic, noted that the new alliance mirrors the regional cooperation that proved essential during those months of uncertainty. “We’re in another period where there’s a lot of contradictory information coming out of HHS, our departments of public health, and what people are reading,” Lamont said in an interview. The alliance, he explained, is designed to cut through the noise and provide clear, consistent guidance to the public.
Colorado Governor Jared Polis emphasized the practical realities facing state governments. With fewer resources coming from Washington, D.C., governors are increasingly on “the front lines of public health,” Polis stated. “This new partnership will help states deliver consistent, common sense solutions that prevent the spread of disease, save lives, and protect our freedom.”
But not everyone is convinced that the alliance represents a flawless solution. Anand Parekh, chief health policy officer at the University of Michigan School of Public Health and a former HHS deputy assistant secretary of health, cautioned that states cannot match the CDC’s unique data systems for infectious-disease surveillance. He also warned that the alliance could further politicize public health if Republican governors choose not to participate. “There is the concern of further politicization of public health if Republican governors do not join this effort,” Parekh told The Washington Post.
Tom Frieden, a former CDC director, offered a stark assessment of the current situation. “Really, what’s the alternative?” Frieden asked. “You’ve got a CDC that has been hijacked by people who are obscuring or denying facts, and you have life-and-death decisions that have to be made.” For many, the alliance is less a matter of preference and more a matter of necessity.
The alliance’s advisory board features notable figures from both Democratic and Republican backgrounds, including Mandy Cohen, who led the CDC under President Joe Biden, and Anne Zink, a former president of the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials. Cohen emphasized that the alliance is intended to be bipartisan and is actively seeking participation from Republican governors. She pointed out that staff from red states have already joined recent briefings on topics such as prescription drug prices and vaccine policy. “The door is open for more folks to join, even if they can’t join formally,” Cohen said. “Even if they don’t join, we will continue to reach out and to offer support.”
Anne Zink, who also served as Alaska’s chief medical officer, agreed to join the alliance only because of its nonpartisan approach and the urgent need for stronger state-level coordination. “We have deferred to the federal government too much, and that’s not what works best for people,” Zink explained. Both Cohen and Zink stressed that, while the alliance is currently dominated by Democratic-led states, its mission is to provide support and resources to all states facing public health challenges—regardless of political affiliation.
Despite the alliance’s ambitions, some experts warn of potential pitfalls. Michelle M. Mallo, a professor of law and health policy at Stanford University, noted that states will struggle to replace lost federal funding for public health. She suggested that the growing divide could result in a “two-track system of public health protection,” with some states wielding government power to protect public health while others take a more hands-off approach. The result, Mallo warned, could be a patchwork of responses to future pathogens that easily cross state lines.
Public health experts are particularly alarmed by Secretary Kennedy’s transformation of the CDC. According to The Los Angeles Times, Kennedy has fired top officials, slashed research funding, changed vaccine recommendations, and replaced the leadership of a key federal immunization committee with novices. These moves have fueled concern that the nation’s capacity to respond to health threats is being undermined at a time when global pandemics and emerging diseases remain ever-present risks.
In the midst of these seismic changes, the Governors Public Health Alliance is positioning itself as a bulwark against what its members see as the erosion of science-based public health leadership at the federal level. The alliance’s leaders are determined to provide consistent, evidence-driven guidance and resources to their constituents—even if it means taking on responsibilities once reserved for Washington.
As the alliance opens its doors to more states and continues to build its advisory team, the future of American public health coordination remains uncertain. What is clear, though, is that the nation’s approach to safeguarding public health is undergoing a profound transformation—one that will have lasting consequences for how Americans confront the challenges of disease, misinformation, and political division in the years ahead.
