legal action
In the US, scientific research is facing a new bureaucratic obstacle marked by a stringent escalation in research security enforcement by major federal funding bodies. Traditionally, the US has positioned itself as the vanguard of open, globalized scientific inquiry, a model predicated on the understanding that breakthrough discoveries thrive on cross-border intellectual synergy. However, recent regulatory shifts initiated by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) indicate a retreat from this paradigm. By retroactively and rigidly redefining international authorship as a national security risk, federal grant managers threaten to balkanise academic collaboration and stifle scientific progress.
At the core of the current crisis is the administrative weaponization of the “foreign component” clause. Historically, the NIH mandated prior approval only when federal funds were explicitly exported or when critical project segments were physically conducted abroad. Contemporary enforcement, however, relies heavily on automated digital auditing systems that flag any international institutional affiliation on published papers as evidence of an unauthorised foreign component. This algorithmic surveillance penalizes benign, routine academic practices. US-based principal investigators have been forced to expunge highly cited, peer-reviewed publications from their federal progress reports simply because a co-author was an international scholar, a foreign student working within an US lab, or a colleague who provided isolated research materials.
This bureaucratic overreach is amplified by a lack of institutional transparency. Rather than issuing clear, standardized guidelines through formal rule-making channels, agencies are executing these directives via private, ad-hoc communications between individual grant managers and researchers. This strategy of decentralised intimidation leaves academic institutions without uniform legal recourse, compelling university compliance offices to draft defensive internal policies. For instance, researchers are now advised to attach granular, defensive footnotes to their manuscripts explicitly certifying the physical, geographic location of every contributor during the research process to avoid automated funding freezes.
The ramifications extend beyond administrative inconvenience, posing a existential threat to the integrity of global science. Faced with the existential threat of funding termination or legal prosecution, US scientists are disincentivised from pursuing crucial international partnerships. Others may choose to obfuscate federal sponsorship on collaborative papers to circumvent algorithmic detection, thus undermining the transparency of research funding.
Update:
In June 2026 the White House OMB released proposed revisions to the federal Uniform Guidance that would tighten oversight of federal awards, explicitly addressing foreign collaborations, reporting, and recipient responsibilities; commentators warn these changes could widen the administrative burden on grantees and institutional compliance offices. Coverage in major science outlets and policy analyses framed these actions as part of a broader administration push to overhaul transparency and control in federal research funding. Critics argue some proposals risk politicising grant making and chilling international collaboration.
News pieces and policy briefs describe more aggressive enforcement by grant managers (including retrospective audits and requests to remove or explain foreign co‑authorship), plus institutions drafting defensive procedures to avoid triggering automated audits. Scientists, scientific societies, and international collaborators have expressed concern that tighter rules and algorithmic detection of foreign affiliations will disincentivize open co‑authorship and complicate routine global partnerships.
The proposed Uniform Guidance revisions will follow a formal notice-and-comment process; watch for the final rule text and agency-specific implementing guidance because those will determine the precise legal obligations and whether the most burdensome interpretations survive.
Ten years after Brexit, it seems reasonable to ask what effects Brexit has caused on health-related matters for the UK and beyond. Here is my attenpt to provide an answer; these are the 8 issues that come to my mind:
- Workforce Disruption and Recruitment Shift: The ending of free movement led to a sharp drop in EU-trained doctors, nurses, and social care staff. To plug these vacancy gaps, the UK was forced into recruiting heavily from non-EU nations. This created a fragile reliance on international recruitment from countries facing their own healthcare worker shortages. In turn, this further supported the xenophobic sentiments of some UK citizens.
- Medicine Supply Problems: Leaving the EU single market introduced significant customs and regulatory friction. This friction directly contributed to the frequency and severity of local pharmaceutical shortages in the UK.
- Loss of Regulatory Leverage: By exiting the European Medicines Agency (EMA), the UK became a standalone market. Pharmaceutical companies now regularly prioritize the much larger EU and US markets for rolling out cutting-edge new treatments, leaving the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) to act as a “rule-taker” by fast-tracking approvals already granted elsewhere.
- Cross-Border Friction: Reciprocal healthcare arrangements became more complex under the new Global Health Insurance Card (GHIC) system. While basic travel is covered, specialized cross-border medical networks face ongoing administrative and legal hurdles. Many British ex-pats’ found themselves without health cover.
- Regulatory Divergence in Training and Innovation: The UK has increasingly diverged from EU rules, such as lowering the mandatory clinical training hours required for a nursing degree to get staff into hospitals faster. Additionally, medical technology and AI developers now face double-compliance costs (clearing separate UK and EU hurdles). This makes the UK a more expensive market to launch new health technologies.
- The Macro-economic Squeeze: The overall economic downturn resulting from Brexit reduced UK GDP, shrinking the available tax revenues. This has directly limited the government’s financial capacity to fund the NHS, to clear post-pandemic backlogs, and to invest in long-term social care reform.
- Exacerbating Health Inequalities: As inflation, food costs, and supply chain disruptions damaged the UK, vulnerable socioeconomic groups have been hit the hardest. These economic pressures, combined with a chronically strained social care sector, significantly widen UK health inequalities.
- Compounding Pressure on Patient Outcomes: While ultimate health metrics, such as mortality rates and overall life expectancy, are influenced by dozens of complex variables, an underfunded NHS, chronic staffing vulnerabilities, and restricted access to new drugs create a persistent, negative headwind against public health which, in the long run, can only negatively affect patient outcomes.
All of these effects are clearly negative.
Can anyone think of a positive effect?
I can’t!
The claim that Elon Musk might be “killing millions” sounds like hyperbolic rhetoric, but it is an entirely predictable mathematical projection of his policy choices. Peer-reviewed global health modeling showed that the systematic dismantling of USAID—spearheaded by Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE)—will result in over 14 million preventable deaths by 2030, millions of whom are children. By freeze-framing and terminating programs that provide life-saving vaccines, malaria bed nets, and HIV therapeutics, these actions have directly triggered the resurgence of entirely controllable diseases.
Hard to believe?
See for yourself; here is the abstract of the paper published in the Lancet:
Background: Official development assistance (ODA) accounts for the majority of humanitarian and development assistance in the world’s most vulnerable countries and has played a pivotal role in advancing global health. We aimed to comprehensively evaluate the impact of ODA funding on mortality across the past two decades, and to project the potential consequences of current defunding trends.
Methods: We conducted an integrated retrospective evaluation and forecasting analysis using longitudinal panel data from 93 low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). First, we estimated the association between ODA per-capita funding and mortality outcomes from 2002 to 2021 using a two-ways fixed-effects multivariable Poisson regression model with robust standard errors, adjusted for all relevant demographic, socioeconomic, and health-system covariates. We then assessed age-specific and cause-specific effects, performing extensive sensitivity and triangulation analyses to test the robustness and causal interpretation of results. Finally, we integrated the retrospective impact estimates into validated country-level microsimulation models to forecast mortality under three defunding scenarios up to 2030: a business-as-usual trajectory, a severe defunding scenario, and a mild defunding scenario.
Findings: Higher ODA funding levels were associated with a 23% reduction in age-standardised all-cause mortality (rate ratio [RR] 0·77; 95% CI 0·70-0·85) and a 39% reduction in under-5 mortality (0·61; 0·49-0·75). ODA funding was associated with large mortality declines in major communicable diseases: 70% for HIV/AIDS (RR 0·30; 95% CI 0·24-0·39), 56% for malaria (0·44; 0·35-0·56), 56% for nutritional deficiencies (0·44; 0·30-0·65), and 54% for neglected tropical diseases (0·46; 0·36-0·59). Significant reductions were also observed in mortality from tuberculosis, diarrhoeal diseases, lower respiratory infections, and maternal and perinatal causes. Forecasting analyses projected that ongoing reductions in ODA funding could, under a severe defunding scenario, result in 22·6 million (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 16·3-29·3) additional deaths across all ages by 2030, including 5·4 million (4·1-6·8) among children younger than 5 years. Under a mild defunding scenario-defined as a continuation of current downward trends-the projected excess deaths would be 9·4 million (95% UI 6·2-12·6) overall and 2·5 million (1·8-3·2) among children younger than 5 years.
Interpretation: ODA funding has played a decisive role in reducing preventable mortality across LMICs over the past two decades, and the abrupt withdrawal of this support threatens to cause millions of avoidable deaths, reversing decades of progress in global health.
Funding: RF Catalytic Capital and the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation.
Attempting to shield Musk from the moral indictment of these deaths by hiding behind bureaucratic complexity is a cop-out. Musk is not a passive advisor suggesting minor budgetary trims; he has aggressively engineered and celebrated the destruction of these aid mechanisms on his public platform, explicitly branding the defunding of life-saving infrastructure as “clipping waste.” When an individual wields unchecked power to eliminate interventions with legally and medically proven survival rates, the line between “efficiency” and institutional negligence disappears. He is fully aware of the survival benefits of these programs, making the choice to dismantle them a calculated acceptance of mass mortality.
While defenders argue that epidemiological models deal in macro-statistics rather than localized causality, this defense elides the nature of modern accountability. Musk cannot hand-select which specific child dies of malaria, but he did hand-select the budget line that funded their treatment. Pretending this is just a structural or collective government failure sanitizes the reality: a single billionaire used his leverage to treat global survival infrastructure like an unprofitable corporate acquisition, making him materially and morally responsible for the human body count that follows.
In March 2025, a federal judge ruled that DOGE’s effort to dismantle USAID likely violated the Constitution and ordered restoration of access to key systems, saying USAID had been effectively eliminated. That matters because it weakens any claim that the dismantling was merely speculative or rhetorical: courts have already treated the shutdown effort as legally serious.
For a deeper look into the systemic impact of these specific health program suspensions and the firsthand accounts of how these funding disruptions unfolded on the ground, you can watch this France 24 Interview with a USAID Whistleblower.
Internal HHS and CDC communications leaked by the US Senate HELP Committee expose a truly scary crisis of institutional integrity. Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. systematically dismantled evidence-based public health infrastructure to implement his personal, ideological and dangerous agenda. This was not merely a shift in administrative policy; it was an aggressive, top-down politicisation of science that directly compromised public safety.
It is now clear that less than 24 hours after his confirmation on 29/30 January 2025 – in the midst of a severe flu season that had already claimed 16,000 lives, including 68 children – Kennedy issued a direct mandate to halt active flu vaccine public service advertisements. Internal communications from HHS Director of Communications Andrew Nixon explicitly confirm this “was a direct ask from Secretary Kennedy.”
The institutional damage caused by Kennedy’s actions extends far beyond suppressed messaging into structural purges. In fact, it seems likely that Kennedy committed perjury. During his confirmation hearings, Kennedy misled lawmakers regarding his intentions to restrict vaccine access and his past anti-vaccine interventions. Once in power, his chief of staff enforced an “absolute need for political review” over career scientists. Kennedy subsequently fired the entire 17-member Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), replacing them with people with strong anti-vaccine views. When career CDC Director Susan Monarez resisted rubber-stamping these politically motivated recommendations, Kennedy fired her, triggering a wave of high-level resignations among the agency’s top medical officers.
The leaked emails also confirm that Kennedy bypassed standard scientific clearance protocols to dispatch handpicked researchers into confidential CDC databases. This was a deliberate attempt to weaponize raw public health data to manufacture evidence for a spurious vaccine-autism link that has been thoroughly debunked by global longitudinal studies involving millions of children.
By substituting ideological loyalty for empirical evidence, the US administration has compromised the foundational mechanics of medicine. When a federal health agency is forced to prioritize dogma over data, the ultimate cost is inevitably paid in preventable human disease and death.
The conclusion: Kennedy has likely committed the serious crime of perjury, has shown to be a danger to our (the damage can quickly spread beyond the US) health, and in my view has to be removed from office asap.
The Nazi’s sterilisation programme aimed at preventing Germans from reproducing who were deemed to be of inferior genetic make-up. It is well-known, and dozens of books have been published about it. In contrast, the ‘LEOPARD LILY PROJECT’ has been almost forgotten. Even though it also was about sterilising large groups of people, it had a very different overall aim.
The porject can be traced back to an Austrian dermatologist named Dr. Adolf Pokorny. Pokorny had encountered a scientific paper detailing animal experiment involving Dieffenbachia seguine (commonly known as the Leopard Lily or “dumb cane”). The juice of this tropical plant could be administered secretly to nonconsenting victims and was assumed to cause permanent sterility without affecting the capacity to work.
Pokorny recognized the dark potential of this botanical property. In his letter to Himmler, he explicitly proposed using Leopard Lily to secretly sterilize “three million Bolsheviks” and other populations in Eastern Europe. Pokorny’s vision was calculated and ruthless: by rendering the inhabitants of occupied territories infertile, the Third Reich could exploit them as slave labour for a single generation. Once that generation aged and died, the population would naturally become extinct, leaving the land cleared for German colonization.
The primary reason this unproven botanical theory was taken seriously at the highest levels of the Nazi command rests on the unique obsessions of Heinrich Himmler. The SS leader was deeply fascinated by alternative medicine, occultism, and pseudoscience. He harboured an intense distrust of mainstream academic medicine and actively promoted natural, herbal remedies.
Captivated by Pokorny’s letter, Himmler bypassed conventional, rigorous scientific channels, assigning high-ranking SS bureaucrats and doctors to fast-track the cultivation of the plant and initiate medical experimentation. However, to operationalize the project, the SS faced an immediate bottleneck: Leopard Lily is native to tropical climates, and Himmler did not possess enough of the plant to extract toxins at a mass scale. Huge, specialized greenhouses were commissioned, and efforts were made to cultivate the plant under controlled conditions within Germany. Yet, the project collapsed under the weight of its own scientific flaws and the changing tides of World War II. The plant could not be grown in quantities large enough to fulfil Himmler’s genocidal dream.
Following the collapse of the Third Reich, the details of the project were brought to light during the Nuremberg Doctors’ Trial (1946–1947). Dr. Adolf Pokorny was placed in the dock alongside prominent Nazi medical war criminals. Pokorny was one of the few to be acquitted by the tribunal. What then became of him remains a mystery.
The very last paragraph of my new book reads as follows: “The story of the Leopard Lily project can serve as a reminder of the dangers caused by unholy alliances of pseudoscience, ideology, immorality, and political power. These dangers have not ended with the Third Reich. If the book can contribute to reducing the risks of future recurrences, it was worth the effort of writing it.”
A legal report has been published on 25 June 2026 examining whether the German political party Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) is unconstitutional under German Basic Law. The study represents the most extensive and methodologically rigorous analysis of the party to date. Conducted over a period of 13 months, the project involved a team of eight experts in constitutional law, right-wing extremism, and data analysis. They systematically evaluated more than 3 million statements by the AfD and identified approximately 2,500 pieces of evidence deemed legally relevant.
A key finding of the report is that, when assessed against the criteria used by the German Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) in party ban proceedings, the AfD meets the threshold for being classified as unconstitutional. The authors state that a formal prohibition request submitted to the Court would “likely succeed.” Importantly, they emphasize that their approach was “open-ended” and aligned with established constitutional jurisprudence, and that their methodology received external validation from two established constitutional law professors.
The report highlights several patterns in AfD positions and rhetoric that it interprets as incompatible with the democratic constitutional order. These include:
- proposals to criminally prosecute political opponents,
- the idea of revoking citizenship from certain criminal offenders who are German nationals,
- calls for the systematic legal discrimination of Muslims.
It also points to demands for unrestricted deportations and statements by supporters denying the legitimacy or existence of transgender individuals. These examples are presented as indicative rather than exhaustive.
The report seeks to shift what it characterizes as a stalled political and legal debate about the AfD’s constitutional status. By providing a large-scale empirical and legal foundation, it implicitly strengthens arguments in favour of initiating formal proceedings to ban the party. In Germany, such a process can only be initiated by constitutional bodies such as the Bundestag, Bundesrat, or federal government, and requires demonstrating both anti-constitutional aims and active efforts to undermine the democratic order.
The report calls on citizens to contact members of parliament to raise awareness of the findings and encourage political action. This reflects an attempt to translate the report’s conclusions into legislative momentum.
Overall, the document combines elements of academic research, legal argument, and political campaigning. Its central significance lies not only in its conclusions but in its potential to influence public discourse and decision-making. Let’s just hope its effect is just that.
Having narcissistic tendencies, e.g. bragging or making yourself the center of attention, are normal, if they occur only occasionally. However, Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) is different. With NPD, symptoms are more severe, occur regularly and in different situations and environments, and make relationships with others challenging.
The 9 most common symptoms of NPD are the following:
- Grandiose sense of self-importance.
- Preoccupation with fantasies of success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love.
- Belief that they are “special” and should associate only with high-status people or institutions.
- Need for excessive admiration.
- Strong sense of entitlement.
- Interpersonally exploitative behaviour, using others to achieve their own ends.
- Lack of empathy, with little recognition of others’ feelings or needs.
- Envy of others, or belief that others are envious of them.
- Arrogant or haughty attitudes and behaviours.
Now, let’s consider a person who is almost constantly in our minds, mainly because he makes the headline news practically every day:
DONALD J TRUMP.
Does he perhaps display any of the above-listed symptoms? Let’s find out by going through them one by one and citing concrete examples**:
- Trump displays grandiose sense of self-importance regularly and to an extreme degree. Example: in August 2019, he told reporters, “I am the chosen one”.
- Trump displays preoccupation with fantasies of success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love regularly and to an extreme degree. Example: he said he was “always the best athlete” before his first presidential physical in January 2018.
- Trump displays his belief that he is “special” and should associate only with high-status people or institutions regularly and to an extreme degree. Example: in his 2018 rally line about the “elite,” he said, “We’re the elite… We’re the super-elite”.
- Trump displays a need for excessive admiration regularly and to an extreme degree. Example: according to a 2026 analysis, he has a “relentless demand for exaltation,” wants “praise, admiration, and accolades,” and even accepts honors that critics said were meant for others.
- Trump displays a strong sense of entitlement regularly and to an extreme degree. Example: he defended accepting a luxury Boeing 747 from Qatar by saying it would be “stupid” to turn down a “free plane,” and the aircraft was reported to be intended for his use as Air Force One.
- Trump displays interpersonally exploitative behaviour, using others to achieve their own ends regularly and to an extreme degree. Example: in the border detention context, he “exploits his power” and “leverages cruelty strategically,” especially in policies that harmed vulnerable migrants and children.
- Trump displays lack of empathy, with little recognition of others’ feelings or needs regularly and to an extreme degree. Example: the family-separation policy at the US border, which causes severe suffering, while Trump continues to treat it as a political instrument rather than a human tragedy.
- Trump displays envy of others, or belief that others are envious of them regularly and to an extreme degree. Example: he has repeatedly made unverified claims about his inauguration crowd size, television ratings, and rally attendance, frequently comparing them directly to Obama’s numbers in an attempt to prove he is more widely loved
- Trump displays arrogant or haughty attitudes and behaviours regularly and to an extreme degree. Example: While accepting the party’s nomination in Cleveland, Ohio, Trump delivered a dark assessment of the US, describing a nation plagued by rising crime, economic decay, and international humiliation. After spending a large portion of the speech detailing these systemic crises, he uttered (in grammatically wrong English): “Nobody knows the system better than me, which is why I alone can fix it.”
So is Trump suffering from NPD?
Judge for yourself.
I guess he is not suffering from but enjoying it!
___________________
And what is the solution? Treatment of NPD can be difficult because people with NPD may not feel therapy is necessary, so progress often depends on motivation and a good therapeutic fit. There is no effective drug treatment and talking therapies are usually recommended. In Trump’s case, removal from office would obviously be an acutely necessary measure.
__________________
**I am sure you know of much better examples (the coice is truly vast); feel free to cite them in the comments.
A contentious debate has just erupted in Germany over the government’s plan to remove homeopathy and anthroposophic medicine from coverage under statutory health insurance (GKV). Former prominent politicians, including Green Party leader Winfried Kretschmann (former Minister President of Baden-Württemberg) and SPD leader Malu Dreyer (former Minister President of Rhineland-Palatinate), signed an “open letter” opposing the removal, arguing it would harm patients and violate ethical principles.
The open letter, launched by the German Central Association of Homeopathic Doctors (DZVhÄ) on June 17, 2026, claims that removing these therapies would be “an expensive wrong decision at the expense of patients.” It cites studies suggesting homeopathy is effective beyond the placebo effect and argues that the majority of German citizens value and benefit from these treatments. Signatories include former Federal Interior Minister Otto Schily (SPD), Greens co-founder Lukas Beckman, actress Sarah Wiener, Alo natura founder Götz Rehn, and “Tatort” actors Hans-Jochen Wagner and Felix Klare, along with former BMG state secretaries Marion Caspers-Merk and Edgar Franke.
The German Ministry of Health (BMG) defends the planned removal as part of the “GKV Contribution Rate Stabilization Act,” which aims to save €20–50 million annually. The ministry correctly states there is “insufficient scientific evidence for effectiveness” and that no evidence exists to justify cost coverage for these therapies. Under the new law, statutorily insured patients would need to pay for homeopathy and anthroposophic medicine themselves or obtain private insurance.
The Bundestag’s final reading of the law was delayed from June 26 to July 10, 2026, giving lawmakers more time to review the open letter before the parliamentary summer recess. This delay reflects the political sensitivity of the issue.
Opposition to the open letter comes from major healthcare organizations. The GKV-Spitzenverband (health insurance federation) supports removing services without scientific evidence, the Kassenärztliche Bundesvereinigung (doctors’ association) welcomes returning to “proven treatment methods.” and IQWIG, the health economics institute, confirms that homeopathy and anthroposophy lack evidence for GKV coverage.
This controversy is unusual because Kretschmann (Greens) and Dreyer (SPD) have in the past been aligned with evidence-based medicine and scientific attitude towards so-called alternative medicine (SCAM).
Allow me to congratulate the signatories for producing what possibly is the finest piece of health-related BS of 2026!
The US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s decision to make the annual flu vaccine optional for US military service members in April 2026 was not an exercise in “medical autonomy,” as he called it at the time. It was a recklessly ideological act that has now already cost a life. By lifting a long-standing, evidence-based mandate Hegseth dismissed as “absurd” and “overreaching,” he prioritized ill-advised principles over the health, welfare, and readiness of US service members.
The consequences arrived swiftly and were confirmed in mid-June 2026. At Lackland Air Force Base in Texas, at least 159–160 recruits fell ill with flu within weeks, with two hospitalizations. One sixth-week trainee, Keon McDaniel, died on June 16 at Brooke Army Medical Center after a medical emergency on June 12. While the official cause of death remains under investigation, sources report McDaniel had not received the flu vaccine. Vaccination rates among Air Force trainees plummeted to roughly 40% after the mandate was lifted, compared to near 100% coverage while immunization was mandatory.
The outbreak was so severe that the Air Force received an emergency exception from the Pentagon and reinstated mandatory flu shots for all recruits at Lackland – an admission that Hegseth’s policy was dangerously wrong. The exception was granted by the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, which can authorize mandatory vaccination when risk assessments warrant it.
Hegseth styled himself “Secretary of War” while declaring mandatory vaccination “not rational.” Yet the mathematics of infectious disease are clear: in communal settings like military bases, where close contact is unavoidable, voluntary vaccination leads almost inevitably to outbreaks. Yet Hegseth ignored decades of public health evidence that flu vaccines reduce morbidity, prevent complications, and maintain operational readiness. His decision was irresponsible and little more than political posturing aligned with anti-vaccination rhetoric that currently undermines public health across the US under Trump’s administration.
The death of a young trainee is a human cost Hegseth cannot dismiss. Texas Congressman Joaquin Castro is now calling for a full DoD accounting of the outbreak and an investigation into McDaniel’s death. Whenever military leaders make policy decisions, they must prioritize readiness and safety over ideology. Hegseth failed that duty in the most appalling fashion. His flu shot reversal was by no way a victory for autonomy; it was a failure of leadership that endangered service members and will likely cost more lives if not urgently corrected across the entire armed forces.
As of June 20, 2026, the mandatory flu vaccine has not been reinstated across all armed forces – only at Lackland. The broader policy remains voluntary, leaving the rest of the military exposed to Hegseth’s stupidity and similar outbreaks.
The health-related news comimg out of the US get more worrying by the day. In June 2026, a New World screwworm was detected in Texas cattle for the first time since 1966, a catastrophic failure traceable to the Trump administration’s systematic dismantling of animal disease prevention programs. The flesh-eating parasite, whose larvae consume living tissue and can kill livestock within days, has returned due to preventable policy choices.
Trump slashed over $382 million in USAID funding dedicated to international disease monitoring, including specific programs tracking screwworm spread through Central America and Mexico. More than 100 US-funded FAO programs were thus terminated, representing nearly 10% of the FAO’s planned budget. Scientists had warned for months that screwworm was advancing north through Mexico, accumulating 9,574 confirmed cases by late 2025, yet the administration cut surveillance funding precisely when vigilance was most critical.
The consequences are now undeniable. An infected three-week-old calf was discovered in La Pryor, Texas, approximately 30 miles from the Mexican border, triggering a 20-kilometer quarantine zone. The pest could further shrink the US cattle herd, already at its lowest level in 75 years, potentially costing Texas alone up to $1.8 billion in economic losses through livestock deaths, medication expenses, and labor costs.
Beyond negligence, Trump actively undermined US ranchers. In October 2025, he announced plans to import Argentine beef to lower grocery prices, calling domestic cattle producers’ concerns about tariffs as not understanding economics. The cattle industry condemned this as “undermining the future of farmers” and creating “turmoil at a crucial time”. Canadian authorities subsequently imposed temporary livestock import restrictions from affected Texas areas, emblematic of the international trade vulnerabilities the outbreak creates.
The administration’s response – claiming they “bought time” while defending against inevitable predictions that models showed screwworm entering in 2025 – reads as damage control rather than genuine accomplishment. Meanwhile, the USDA established sterile fly releases and quarantines, emergency measures that should have been unnecessary with proper preventative funding.
Trump’s agricultural policy combines reckless budget cuts with market interference that harms American producers. The screwworm outbreak is not merely bad luck; it is the direct result of prioritizing ideological slashing of foreign aid over protecting American food security and the livelihoods of ranchers who already face record-high consumer prices and shrinking herds.
New World screwworm poses serious, potentially fatal dangers to humans through myiasis, where larvae burrow into and consume living tissue. While primarily affecting livestock, humans can be infested as well – particularly those with open wounds, diabetes, or peripheral vascular disease. The first US human case was confirmed in August 2024. Infestations cause painful, foul-smelling wounds that worsen rapidly and can lead to death if untreated, with scalp involvement carrying an 8% mortality rate as larvae may burrow through the skull into the brain.
Update 11/6/26:
USDA had already confirmed the first US livestock case in decades in a 3-week-old calf in Zavala County, Texas, and by June 9, 2026 it was reporting six domestic animal detections, including cases in Texas, New Mexico, and a goat in Gillespie County.
A few final points:
- Precautions consist in measures like keeping wounds clean and covered, wearing protective clothing, using insect repellent, and sleeping indoors with screens are essential.
- Treatment might include Ivermectin – yes, the drug that was hyped for COVID might finally come into its own.
- The US meat market share in Europe is extremely small, less than 1% of Europe’s total meat consumption.
- The whole story might seem insignificant, would it not confirm the many other ways in which the Trump administration is almost systematically endangering public health in the US and beyond (see previous posts).
