Brayden Unger is an undergraduate student at California State University, San Marcos, majoring in Neuroscience.

Brayden Unger

In an outdoor, temporary mobile clinic in rural Cambodia, on his second day at the clinic, Thomas was recapping the 30th used syringe of the afternoon. He had been shown how once, that morning. The caps did not always stay on. Sometimes he came to a syringe and found the needle exposed. He would recap it, remove the assembly, set it aside. He knew this was where something could go badly wrong. He was careful, and nothing happened. It was only later, back at school during his sophomore year, that he grasped how dangerous those three days in clinic had been.

We interviewed Thomas, a pseudonym, about his volunteer experience with a medical relief organization in the summer of 2025, between his freshman and sophomore years at Vanderbilt University. As a premed student, he wanted a first taste of global health work. He joined a team of medical professionals and students deploying mobile clinics into communities that go years without care. He expected to shadow, learning how medical care is given outside of US medicine. However, during the 3 days he spent at the mobile clinics, he took vital signs, assisted with extractions, and reprocessed instruments, none of which were assigned in advance and none of which he was trained for.

This experience was not caused by a negligent organization. Thomas was simply a well-intentioned volunteer doing whatever was asked of him under severe constraints. His short time in the field provided a stark education in resource disparity. What it exposed was not a shortage of equipment. It was the absence of anything that would have told him what the equipment was for.

On day one, the Cambodian government shifted the schedule to an informal tour of a rural hospital. The tour offered no discussion of infection control, Thomas’s upcoming role, or his readiness. It was the only day built for orientation, and it was the last chance anyone had to ask what he could actually do. The clinics opened the next morning.

A couple of hours into his first day in the clinic, he was completing triage vital signs. He was shown the blood pressure cuff, given verbal instructions, a single demonstration, and left to begin. He used the same blood pressure cuff on every patient in the queue. He was told it only needed to be cleaned if the patient had a rash. Then clean it with soap and water. He did not know that disinfection between every patient is the standard of care.

The day’s work carried a risk he was not aware of. At one point, Thomas overheard clinicians casually mentioning that a patient in line had tuberculosis, after which he saw one team member put on a mask. He never learned if the report was accurate, who the patient was, or if any isolation or screening took place. No one mentioned that he may need to wear a mask, to put one on the patient, or that there might be a potential TB exposure.The transmission risk of tuberculosis was not mentioned, nor was any respiratory workup performed.

As the day progressed, Thomas volunteered to help where he was needed. This took him from performing vital signs to assisting the periodontist with tooth extractions.

The provider gave an overview of the procedure and what was needed of Thomas to assist. He was told to wear gloves when touching the patient, to never touch the lidocaine cartridge with his hands, never reach across the sterile field, keep used instruments away from clean ones, place the gauze afterward, and wash his hands.

Every instruction is correct. Note what is absent. But look closer at what was missing: an actual foundation for infection prevention.

He was never taught to don a mask. He was never taught the 5 moments of hand hygiene. He was never taught when to don gloves; he watched others and copied. He washed before gloving because it made sense to him to, not because others were doing it.

The extractions ran on reusable aspirating syringes: a disposable needle, a lidocaine cartridge, and a metal barrel that goes back into service. Recapping is the correct move here. There is a technique for it, and there is a place the needle goes afterward. Thomas was shown the motion once and left with it. Nobody told him the technique had a name, or that the way he was doing it was the way you get stuck.

There was no sharps container. He was working outside. The needle had nowhere to go that an infection preventionist (IP) would recognize. Instead, recapped needles went onto the instrument tray, and the tray went to the reprocessing area. Thomas had no part in what happened after that. He does not know what became of the needles.

He was never told what would happen if he got stuck. He was never told of the risk. It was treated as a non-issue.

The staff moved to a different clinic location each day, the second and third in more rural and resource-limited locations. Thomas was moved from assisting to reprocessing reusable aspirating syringes. These sites lacked sinks and used a 3-bucket chemical system to decontaminate, clean, and disinfect. Thomas was provided with a brief tutorial, which included instructions to scrub until the visible bioburden was gone, move to sequential timed baths, and then air-dry on paper padding. He was given a timer, a pair of gloves, asked once to repeat the sequence, and followed it conscientiously.

What that achieved was disinfection, not sterilization. The site did not have access to electricity or reliable running water. No autoclave was in use for the instruments he processed, and Thomas did not recognize the word when we asked. Initially, the disinfection buckets were filled with bottled drinking water. When that supply ran low mid-clinic, the team resorted to using water from an outdoor hose. He was unsure whether it went into the chemical baths, the rinse, or both.

While this practice concerned Thomas, he was not aware of the associated risks of handling instruments with bioburden with exam gloves and without a mask or eye protection. Nor the risk of waterborne pathogens from unknown water.

Back at school, Thomas began building clinical context. He has since observed surgery, in which the sterile field is defined and monitored, and in which every instrument arrives sterilized and packaged. Twice in our conversation, he learned something midsentence. He called the 3-bucket process sterilization, was corrected, and understood at once what that meant for every instrument he had handled. He learned that the use of personal protective equipment was determined by standard and transmission-based precautions.

Strip out the geography and the equipment list, and what is left is the chain of infection, the same six links we work every day.

Thomas came home unharmed, and that is the only thing about those three days that went right without anyone designing it. He was at risk of infection each day her worked and did not know it. Recapping by hand across two afternoons. No container. No plan if a cap fails. That is a portal of entry, and bloodborne pathogens are what come through it. Taking vitals down a queue reported to hold a patient with tuberculosis, unmasked, never told who or whether. A highly infectious pathogen transmitted through the air. Reprocessing instruments in buckets topped off with water from a garden hose: That is a reservoir introduced at the step meant to remove it.

Each year, volunteer organizations mobilize thousands of participants into low-resource clinics where infection-prevention infrastructure may be minimal or absent. What happens to them there has been measured once. Researchers surveyed 223 clinicians and trainees who had worked in lower-resourced countries and asked whether they had been pushed past their training. Half had been asked. Of those, 61% did it. The rate climbed as training fell: 51% among licensed physicians, 81% among residents and fellows, 100% among medical students. Among respondents whose trip carried no clinical focus at all, one in four were still asked to perform clinical tasks they had never been trained for.

 The survey did not reach people like Thomas, who arrived with no clinical training to exceed. It did note that pre-health students seek these opportunities out.

 What happened to Thomas is predictable, and it is preventable. It’s the inevitable result of a fragile system that, out of sheer necessity, overly depends on volunteer labor.

His experience is valuable to IPs because of the latent risks it reveals, rather than a specific negative outcome. Hazards such as untrained needle handling, using disinfected instead of sterile instruments, shared equipment, and unmonitored tuberculosis exposure all point to the same systemic gap. CDC’s ambulatory-care guidelines address these issues, including Thomas: The guidance defines health care personnel as all persons, paid and unpaid, and names volunteers among them.

 The standard already covers him. Yet, he didn’t know how to read it.

Asked what he would tell a premed student considering the same trip

 he questioned the premise of the trip he took. Untrained undergraduates, he suggested, might contribute more by building outreach systems or training modules than by occupying space on the ground. For the professionals reading this, his account is a mirror: what the absence of those systems looks like from within, seen by someone who lived it before he knew the vocabulary.

Mobile missions face real constraints. There is pressure to keep moving. Treating patients was the priority, and the organization treated them however it could. There were training failures, and training failures are correctable. What was missing was basic infection prevention education before he flew, or twenty minutes of it on the orientation day the team spent touring a hospital; with that, he would have had enough to protect himself, enough to protect the patients, and enough to ask an informed question.

That last one is worth sitting with. The value of infection prevention lies in providing a framework for applying best practices in the field, establishing a universal baseline of care that protects patients and providers alike. We do that work in world-class academic systems and in small, rural critical-access hospitals. The guidance does not change between them. Only the room does.

Guide to Infection Prevention for Outpatient Settings: Minimum Expectations for Safe Care

. Version 2.3. Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health and Human Services, CDC; 2016. Updated September 30, 2025. Accessed July 17, 2026. 

https://www.cdc.gov/infection-control/media/pdfs/Outpatient-Guide-508.pdf

2. Doobay-Persaud A, Evert J, DeCamp M, et al. Extent, nature and consequences of performing outside scope of training in global health. 

. 2019;15(1):60. doi:10.1186/s12992-019-0506-6

Articles

How much infection prevention training should volunteers receive before participating in medical missions?
A new perspective in Infection Control Today follows one college student's experience volunteering in rural Cambodia, where he was asked to perform clinical tasks well beyond his training. Years later, he realized just how many infection prevention risks he had unknowingly encountered.
The article explores what his experience reveals about volunteer preparation, resource-limited care, and why basic infection prevention education should be considered essential for anyone participating in clinical outreach.
Read the full story.


Special Feature. Three Days in Cambodia: What a Volunteer Saw Before He Had the Words

Epidemiologists and other Infection prevention and control professionals researching outbreaks.

For weeks, the virus moved in silence, circulating undetected before it was formally identified. On April 1, 2026, the MV 

 set sail from Argentina for a month-long South Atlantic cruise, carrying passengers and crew from 23 countries into an unrecognized exposure environment.

 By April 11, the first fatality was recorded. Yet, it would take another 3 weeks before the World Health Organization (WHO) was notified, more than a month after the ship's departure. 

 This represented a critical window during which the virus went unnoticed, allowing passengers to leave the ship and scatter across the globe.

As of May 26, 2026, the official toll stands at 13 cases (11 confirmed, 2 probable), including 3 deaths.

 Although typical hantaviruses spread strictly through the inhalation of aerosolized particles from infected rodent excreta, this specific outbreak involves a much more high-consequence pathogen: the Andes strain.

 It is the only known hantavirus capable of person-to-person transmission. Because its incubation period spans 1 to 8 weeks, exposed individuals can cross international borders while entirely asymptomatic.

Although person-to-person spread remains statistically rare (estimated at 2% to 5% of cases), the clinical stakes are exceptionally high, given the strain’s 40% to 50% mortality rate.

The domestic containment response was immediate upon arrival; 18 US passengers were intercepted and presently quarantined inside high-security biocontainment units in Nebraska for an extended 21-days until May 31.

 Although the situation remains fluid, as of May 18, 2026, the immediate domestic threat is actively managed under extended federal quarantine authority: an initial positive result in 1 American passenger was retested and confirmed negative. At present, none of the 41 Americans currently under active monitoring has returned a confirmed positive result.

On May 22, the Netherlands' National Institute for Public Health and the Environment reported a new case in a disembarked crew member who was already in quarantine.

 Shortly after, on May 25, Spain’s Health Ministry confirmed a second positive case among the evacuated Spanish nationals. Both patients were safely isolated in their respective local hospitals when routine polymerase chain reaction (PCR) surveillance tests came back positive.

The MV Hondius incident is global in scale, but the surveillance gap exposed the lag between first exposure and actionable data is one that infection preventionists (IPs) navigate at the facility level every day.

 incident highlights a persistent vulnerability in global public health: the significant lag between frontline transmission and official data verification. Although formal regulatory bodies like the CDC and WHO remain the gold standard for authoritative records, their multilayered verification pipelines are inherently slow, often delaying localized public health and facility-level responses.

While official reports were pending, 2 epidemiologists bypassed traditional bureaucratic delays. Using an informal communication network to surface immediate epidemiological questions, they built a hantavirus cruise outbreak tracker in just 2.5 hours.

 It was one of several rapid-aggregation tools that emerged as official channels worked to catch up. The dashboard did not generate new data; instead, it aggregated disparate news reports, localized social media signals, and international ministerial briefings into a single, interactive, real-time timeline.

As of May 22, WHO reported that more than 600 contacts were being followed across 30 countries. A surveillance footprint that took weeks to map through official channels, while the dashboard was aggregating signals in hours 

(Credit: Brayden Unger with AI. Source GenomicEpi, 2026)

 Formal public health agencies must protect scientific credibility by adhering to rigid, laboratory-confirmed data pipelines such as PCR. They rarely issue definitive global alerts based on circumstantial data.

 If an infection preventionist (IP) waits 4 to 16 days (the typical latency period for sample collection, sequencing, and official agency reporting) to implement strict isolation or contact tracing, an exposure event can escalate exponentially.

 outbreak unfolded, official channels were slow to map the ship's trajectory, the nationalities of the exposed passengers, and emerging genomic sequences. By shifting the objective from data generation to open-source data aggregation, tools like the 

 provide immediate utility to frontline clinicians through 3 mechanisms:

 The dashboard leveraged open-source sources, including press releases from Oceanwide Expeditions, localized hospital announcements (such as those from Geneva University Hospital), and media briefs, to unify and create a single timeline.

 The tracker used open sequencing repositories (like Pathoplexus) and crowdsourced epidemiological networks (like Global.health) to map real-time data.

Creating "Situational Awareness" Rather Than Direct Guidance:

 The disclaimer on GenomicEpi notes that it is an unofficial visualization. This distinction is crucial because it doesn't claim to be a regulatory medical authority, and it doesn't require weeks of administrative approvals. This allows it to provide immediate visual context to IPs who need to know right now if a ship docked near their region or if passengers from their catchment area were aboard.

For IPs, the clinical value of this approach is found in the granular details that official reports had not yet captured. In this case, the tracker documented a Swiss passenger who disembarked while asymptomatic but became symptomatic 4 days later and identified an exposed passenger who entered Saint Helena with symptoms nearly 2 weeks before official verification occurred.

The field is evolving toward acting on early signals before lab confirmation arrives, allowing formal verification to catch up in parallel. For the facility-level IP, these dashboards serve as an early-warning radar, allowing leadership to scale up triage readiness, assess personal protective equipment (PPE) stockpiles, and review isolation protocols well ahead of an official CDC alert.

Not all surveillance dashboards carry the same clinical authority or operate on the same timeline. IPs must understand where these tools sit on the data spectrum to use them effectively:

Such the WHO, CDC, and European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC), maintain strict case definitions and hold ultimate regulatory weight, but have the highest data latency (slowest response time).

Institutional aggregators (HealthMap, BlueDot):

 Sit between government bodies and independent tools. They use automated algorithms to scan multilingual news feeds and travel data, providing rapid situational awareness.

Independent open-source dashboards (GenomicEpi, Nextstrain):

 Move the fastest, using rapid development tools and public repositories to fill immediate information gaps when timelines are tight.

The table below provides a high-level overview of the key platforms in that institutional and open-source tier, including what each offers and where to apply critical scrutiny 

Key Platforms in each institutional and open-source tier, including what each offers and where to apply critical scrutiny.

Application to Health Care Facility Outbreaks

 represents a large-scale international event, IPs face these exact data fragmentation challenges at the facility level every day. Consider a standard emergency department encounter: a patient with unrecognized measles spends 2 hours in the waiting room. By the time laboratory confirmation is achieved days later, the exposure window has closed, leaving the IP to manually reconstruct contact lists across changing staff shifts, untracked waiting room visitors, and vulnerable, immunocompromised patients. The same labor-intensive process governs tuberculosis exposures, respiratory outbreaks in long-term care, or perioperative bloodborne pathogen exposures.

The essential data exists, but it is siloed across electronic medical records, staffing rosters, and occupational health databases. The next evolution of infection prevention relies on using internal dashboards, inspired by tools like GenomicEpi, to aggregate these internal data streams, compressing days of manual contact tracing into actionable, hours-long interventions.

Actionable Steps for the Infection Preventionist

Integrating open-source and advanced digital surveillance into your facility’s workflow does not require an advanced degree in data science; it requires strategic implementation:

 Spend time analyzing open platforms like HealthMap or Nextstrain to familiarize your team with the distinction between raw syndromic signals and verified institutional data.

 Collaborate with your facility's data science or IT specialists. Most health care systems possess underused business intelligence software (eg, Power BI, Tableau) that can be configured to aggregate internal syndromic data for faster localized tracking.

 Always evaluate the data source of any open-source tracker. Assess whether the tool exhibits geographic bias or lacks data from regions with limited digital health infrastructure.

Ultimately, data-aggregated surveillance does not alter the core mandate of infection prevention: It remains the rapid execution of containment protocols before an exposure escalates into an outbreak. Digital surveillance simply ensures that the information is ready when you need it.

You do not need to become a data scientist to lead this change. Training programs are evolving quickly; resources like the CDC Learning Connection and data science courses from Johns Hopkins are already tailoring their curricula for clinical professionals. The immediate goal is simply to understand the technical landscape well enough to ask the right questions. By adopting these faster, real-time tools, IPs can successfully transition facility operations from reactive reconstruction to proactive prevention.

Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology (APIC). Online Learning.

Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. Data Science Specialization in Public Health. Coursera

Hantavirus cluster linked to cruise ship travel, multi-country. Disease Outbreak News. World Health Organization. May 4, 2026. Accessed May 26, 2026.https://www.who.int/emergencies/disease-outbreak-news/item/2026-DON599.

Andes hantavirus outbreak in cruise ship. European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. Updated May 25, 2026. Accessed May 26, 2026. https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/infectious-disease-topics/hantavirus-infection/surveillance-and-updates/andes-hantavirus-outbreak.

About hantavirus. CDC. Accessed May 17, 2026. https://www.cdc.gov/hantavirus/about/index.html. Updated 2026.

2026 multi-country hantavirus cluster linked to cruise ship. CDC. Health Alert Network Health Advisory No. 528. May 8, 2026. Accessed May 17, 2026. https://www.cdc.gov/han/php/notices/han00528.html.

WHO’s response to hantavirus cases linked to a cruise ship. World Health Organization. May 7, 2026. Accessed May 17, 2026. https://www.who.int/news/item/07-05-2026-who-s-response-to-hantavirus-cases-linked-to-a-cruise-ship.

CDC provides update on hantavirus outbreak linked to M/V 

 cruise ship. CDC Newsroom. May 19, 2026. Accessed May 26, 2026. https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2026/cdc-provides-update-on-hantavirus-outbreak-linked-to-m-v-hondius-cruise-ship.html.

Ministerio de Sanidad [Ministry of Health]. Brote de enfermedad por hantavirus Andes en un crucero [Andes hantavirus disease outbreak on a cruise ship]. Accessed May 26, 2026. https://www.sanidad.gob.es/areas/alertasEmergenciasSanitarias/alertasActuales/hantavirus/home.htm.

Rijksinstituut voor Volksgezondheid en Milieu [National Institute for Public Health and the Environment]. Current information about hantavirus. Updated May 22, 2026. Accessed May 26, 2026. https://www.rivm.nl/en/hantavirus/current-information.

Allen K, Young C. "Developed hantavirus cruise ship outbreak dashboard in two and a half hours" [LinkedIn]. May 8, 2026. Accessed May 17, 2026. https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7458169819566362624/

GenomicEpi. MV Hondius hantavirus outbreak dashboard. Accessed May 17, 2026. https://genomicepi.com/outbreaks/hantavirus-hondius/.

WHO Director-General's opening remarks at the media briefing on outbreaks of Ebola and hantavirus — 22 May 2026. World Health Organization. May 22, 2026. Accessed May 26, 2026. https://www.who.int/news-room/speeches/item/who-director-general-s-opening-remarks-at-the-media-briefing-on-outbreaks-of-ebola-and-hantavirus-22-may-2026.

The MV Hondius hantavirus outbreak exposed a critical surveillance gap: by the time official alerts were issued, exposed passengers had already dispersed across multiple countries. This article explores how infection preventionists can use emerging open-source dashboards, real-time data aggregation tools, and internal informatics systems to bridge the dangerous lag between exposure events and actionable public health intelligence.
From cruise ship outbreaks to facility-level exposures, the piece examines how digital surveillance may help IPs shift from reactive outbreak reconstruction to faster, proactive containment strategies.


The MV Hondius: A Case for Real-Time Epidemiological Surveillance

The ground beneath their feet is undeniably unstable. For US college students with their sights set on a career in public health, the current administration's policies aren't just reshaping the job market; they are redefining the future of the field itself. What was once a hopeful path to making a difference has become a future filled with unknowns, shadowed by shifting federal priorities and the elimination of crucial funding. This isn't just a logistical challenge; it's a profound reevaluation of how public health is valued in the US. For those who have already dedicated their careers to helping others, this can feel gut-wrenching. So, how are today's students reacting to these seismic shifts?

This article dives into the reactions to these changes, concerns about the future, perspectives on the need to adjusts career plans, and the undeniable frustrations of these students. Our insights are drawn from personal interviews with 10 passionate college students across the US, all of whom plan to work in public health. The students selected for this article are from a range of colleges and backgrounds, from undergraduates to doctoral students from the West Coast to the East Coast. Their collective experiences and reactions paint a dynamic picture of the impact these changes are having on the next generation of hopeful public health professionals.

A Crisis of Care? Future Public Health Leaders React to US Policy Shifts

A palpable fear felt collectively by our interviewees, fueled by major headlines. These include the proposed US withdrawal from the World Health Organization in January 2025

 and sharp funding cuts to the National Institutes of Health.

 More recently, broad reductions in force at agencies like the CDC have threatened key initiatives, such as sexually transmitted infection testing. 

The students’ reactions revealed more than only disappointment; they showed a prevailing mood of shock, devastation, and even betrayal on behalf of the people who depend on these programs.

A striking theme was apprehension regarding America's global health leadership. As John Lei, an undergraduate of City College of San Francisco, lamented, “I am devastated because these fundings are important for emergency public health events like [COVID-19].” There's a strong, shared sense that such moves will not only harm international health initiatives but also severely impact the US’s ability to respond to future crises within its own borders.

A common frustration bubbled up in the interviews: a sense that these decisions are being made without a full understanding of their consequences. “[The budget cuts] could risk reversing the progress we've already made in global health," Meleana Mendoza, an undergraduate of Los Medanos Community College, observed.

Public health graduate concerned, holding a diploma. 

Charting a Course: Students Navigate Public Health's Political Landscape

Despite the challenging climate, a significant number of students express a deep commitment to the field. For many, the hostility they perceive has an energizing effect, strengthening their resolve. They see the current environment not as a reason to retreat, but as a call to action. As Darby Curran, an Undergraduate at Boston University, passionately stated, “I am not feeling discouraged. I am using this as a call to action. There is action that needs to happen. For me, I need to keep learning and act so I can help.”

However, this determination is not universal. Other students feel actively discouraged by the political shifts, expressing serious concerns about their future careers. The prospect of graduating into a landscape with fewer jobs and diminished funding stability has left some reconsidering their career paths. "Honestly, it might deter me,” shared Taylor Hsieh, an undergraduate at City College of San Francisco, admitting to voicing a common fear. "[The budget cuts [are] not really helpful for anybody who's trying to find a job or trying to enter the industry because it's just [a] hard time," explained Oma Nwafor, an undergraduate of the University of Pennsylvania

Ultimately, whether determined or discouraged, the students share a pragmatic understanding that these challenges are an inescapable part of the profession. They have come to the mature realization that politics is not just an external force but an inherent factor that shapes public health outcomes. As Dennis Nguyen, an undergraduate of City College of San Francisco, concluded, “You have to accept it. Politics is, unfortunately, everywhere, from business to public health.” This understanding demonstrates that the next generation of public health professionals knows they must be more than skilled practitioners; they must also be resilient and persistent advocates for the future of their field.

How the Climate Shapes Public Health Graduates' Futures

A significant concern voiced by students is that the current climate will discourage future generations from pursuing careers in public health. They believe this could lead to critical gaps in the field, as talented individuals may choose paths perceived to be more stable. For those already committed, the immediate future looks incredibly bumpy. They anticipate a hyper-competitive job market where new graduates will be competing not only with each other but also with experts who have been in the field for decades and are now facing layoffs.

As doctoral student Hannah Battey at the University of California, San Diego, expressed, “I think [fewer] students will pursue public health as a career because the options look to be more limited, at least for the short term and maybe even beyond that.” New graduates will not only be competing with but also against experts who have been in the field for decades. This leaves many students facing the daunting prospect of being left with nothing but a diploma and significant student debt to repay.

Beyond the viability of their careers, students are immensely concerned about their ability to carry out the core mission of public health. One student feared that in a system with lower budgets, the cost of medication would skyrocket, eroding their ability to connect with patients, as Dennis Nguyen an undergraduate, City College of San Francisco, further explained, “Losing this connection with patients will not allow doctors to do a better job … but instead make them more disconnected and angry with us.” Furthermore, graduate students interviewed were terrified that the research funding they had worked so hard to achieve would be taken away, halting projects that have saved lives in the past.

Students are acutely aware that cuts to research aid and organizational funding will evolve into fewer jobs, reduced opportunities, and a diminished capacity for the entire sector to achieve its goals. They see this not as a possibility, but as a concrete threat.

 This combination of professional anxiety and passion for the mission creates a complex outlook, where the very threats that discourage some people are the same ones that galvanize others into becoming fierce advocates for the future of public health.

While the immediate forecast for public health seems fraught with challenges, these interviews reveal a powerful counter-narrative. The same political shifts that provoke fear and discouragement are also forging a new kind of public health professional: One who is not only a skilled practitioner but also a determined and knowledgeable advocate from day 1. These students have replaced any idealism with a pragmatic resolve, accepting that navigating politics is now an inherent part of the job. The threats that cause some to reconsider their paths are the very same ones that galvanize others to fight harder for the communities they plan to serve. Therefore, the future of public health may not be defined by the crises it faces, but by the resilient and impassioned leaders these challenges are creating.

Gilbert C. How cuts and changes in Trump’s first 100 days have reshaped public health. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2025/04/30/public-health-trump-100-days/

Stahl C. Withdrawing the United States from the World Health Organization. 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/withdrawing-the-united-states-from-the-worldhealth-organization/

Stolberg SG. Trump cuts target the next generation of scientists and public health leaders. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/18/us/politics/fda-cdc-health-department-trump.html

Trump’s NIH budget cuts threaten 'entire fields of research,' stirring panic among scientists. 

https://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/trumps-nih-budget-cuts-threaten-research-stirring-panic-rcna191744

Ungar L, Smith MR. Trump administration’s deep cuts to public health leave system reeling. 

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/trump-administrations-deep-cuts-to-public-health-leave-system-reeling

Zadrozny B. CDC is pulling back $11B in Covid funding sent to health departments across the U.S. 

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/cdc-pulling-back-11b-covid-funding-sent-health-departments-us-rcna198006

As federal cuts reshape public health, students nationwide are reacting with fear, frustration, and renewed resolve as they face an uncertain future in the field.

Brayden Unger

Articles

Special Feature. Three Days in Cambodia: What a Volunteer Saw Before He Had the Words

The MV Hondius: A Case for Real-Time Epidemiological Surveillance

Discouraged or Determined: How Politics Is Reshaping Public Health's Next Generation