Examining Claims of President Trump’s Executive Order on CDC Reporting

Introduction

Drawing depicting President Trump signing executive orders on CDC reportingRecently, I’ve come across reports suggesting that President Trump issued an executive order prohibiting the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC Reporting) from collecting and reporting on disease spread. There is such a wide variety of misinformation available for consumption by the public. Naturally, this raised concerns about transparency and public health. I decided to delve into these claims to determine their accuracy and understand the potential implications.

Investigating the CDC Reporting Claim

Upon thorough research, I found no evidence of an executive order explicitly banning the CDC from collecting and reporting disease data. However, recent actions by the administration have led to significant restrictions on federal health agencies’ communications.

Temporary Pause on Public Communications

The Trump administration has implemented a temporary halt on public communications from federal health agencies, including the CDC, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the National Institutes of Health (NIH). This pause affects external communications, publications, and certain activities until at least the end of January 2025. While exceptions exist for critical public health matters, this move has raised concerns about the timely dissemination of vital health information.

Withdrawal from the World Health Organization (WHO)

In addition to the communication pause, President Trump signed an executive order withdrawing the United States from the World Health Organization on January 20, 2025. This decision could have far-reaching consequences, including losing access to WHO’s data on emerging health threats and diminishing U.S. influence in global health matters.

Potential Reasons Behind These Actions

While the administration hasn’t provided detailed explanations for these decisions, several possible motivations can be inferred:

      1. Policy Alignment: The temporary communication halt may aim to ensure that all public health messaging aligns with the administration’s policies and perspectives.
      2. Critique of WHO: The withdrawal from the WHO might stem from criticisms of the organization’s handling of past health crises and perceptions of financial imbalances, with the U.S. contributing a significant portion of the WHO’s budget.

Implications of Trump’s Actions

These decisions carry several potential ramifications:

      • Delayed Public Health Information: The pause in communications could lead to delays in disseminating critical health updates, affecting public awareness and response to health threats.
      • Global Health Collaboration: Exiting the WHO may hinder international collaboration on health initiatives, potentially leaving the U.S. more vulnerable to global health threats.
      • Public Trust: Restricting health agencies’ communications might erode public trust in these institutions, especially if perceived as politically motivated.

Conclusion

I have not seen an executive order explicitly banning the CDC from collecting and reporting disease data. However, recent administrative actions appear to have imposed significant restrictions on health agencies’ communications. They also have altered the U.S.’s role in global health organizations.

It’s crucial to stay informed about these developments, as they have profound implications for public health and policy.

Sources

Favicon People.com 1/21/2025:
Trump Withdraws U.S. from World Health Organization – What Does That Mean?
President Donald Trump signed an executive order on January 20, 2025, to withdraw …

Favicon Healthline 01/24/2025:
Trump Orders Federal Health Agencies to Halt External Communications …

 

Misogyny: Why Kamala Harris Lost the Presidential Election to Donald Trump

So today I thought about rampant misogyny as I listened to portions of the counting of the electoral votes by Vice President Kamala Harris to officially certify Donald Trump as president.

I couldn’t help but think about what I have believed since Hillary Clinton lost her bid for president: sexism and misogyny.

Voter Apathy Among Key Groups

Vice President Kamala Harris on stageIt’s always easier to analyze history than to predict the future. The reality of Kamala Harris’s loss lies heavily in voter apathy. Many people who would have benefited from her policies simply didn’t show up at the polls. Families struggling for better healthcare, stronger labor unions, and enhanced social services failed to vote in their own best interest. I personally know families who desperately need these services yet opted out of voting. They either believed their vote wouldn’t matter or failed to make time. This is the epitome of a self-fulfilling prophecy: by not voting, they ensured the outcome they most feared—a government less likely to address their needs.

This inaction is particularly tragic for those reliant on policies that Democrats historically champion. The refusal to participate in democracy is, effectively, a vote against oneself. This lack of turnout allowed the opposition to triumph, highlighting how voter disengagement can cripple a candidate’s chances, no matter how beneficial their policies might be.

Misogyny and the Barrier of Gender

Kamala Harris’s loss echoes Hillary Clinton’s defeat: both faced entrenched sexism. While Clinton won the popular vote, she lost in the Electoral College, demonstrating that winning nationwide support isn’t enough when key battleground states don’t align. Harris faced a similar uphill battle. A significant segment of the electorate remains unwilling to vote for a woman for president, no matter her qualifications.

Misogyny in America is undeniable. For those not certain about the term, misogyny means a dislike, prejudice, or even hatred toward women just because they are women. It shows up in many ways, like believing that women aren’t as smart or capable as men or thinking that women should only do certain types of jobs. Sometimes, people openly claim that women shouldn’t vote or lead, revealing blatant sexism. Other times, society subtly reinforces unfair treatment toward women through actions and policies. For example, employers often pay women less than men for doing the same job, and people judge women more harshly when they speak assertively. Misogyny doesn’t just manifest as attitudes—it directly shapes laws, workplace dynamics, and relationships, making it even harder for women to achieve equality.

Evangelical Christians and other conservative religious groups often promote the belief that women are inherently subordinate to men. These ideologies persist in parts of the country where traditional gender roles are deeply ingrained, limiting women’s ability to gain widespread support for leadership roles.

This systemic sexism isn’t confined to religion. Women are still underrepresented in positions of power, whether in politics, business, or other sectors. Despite progress, a significant portion of society clings to outdated views about women’s capabilities and roles.

Violence Against Women as a Reflection of Misogyny

Domestic violence and violence against women are rampant in the United States, further illustrating the pervasive disregard for women. These issues are deeply tied to the systemic inequalities that Harris’s candidacy sought to challenge. The persistence of these problems reflects a cultural devaluation of women, making it harder for a woman to gain the respect and trust necessary to lead the nation.

Male Domination and Reluctance to Relinquish Power

Men dominate leadership roles in the U.S., and many are unwilling to relinquish this control. This is evident in both subtle and overt displays of misogyny. Researchers consistently find that society scrutinizes women more harshly than men when they seek leadership. For example, people often praise male leaders for showing assertiveness, but they label women with the same traits as aggressive or unlikable. This double standard remains a significant obstacle.

As time progresses, there is evidence that misogyny is becoming more entrenched. Social media and political rhetoric have amplified sexist attitudes, creating an environment where gender equality is harder to achieve. The reluctance of male leaders to support women’s ascension is a major barrier to progress.

Hope: the Decline of Religious Influence

There is hope for the future: younger generations are distancing themselves from organized religion. This trend could lead to a more equitable society. Many religious doctrines perpetuate the idea of women as second-class citizens. The irony here is striking! Religions often claim to teach goodness and fairness. However, they frequently uphold systems that oppress women. As religious influence wanes, there is potential for a cultural shift that values women more equally and opens the door for female leaders.

However, we are not there yet. Women continue to face significant barriers to achieving true parity in power. The cultural and systemic changes needed for a woman to be widely accepted as a presidential candidate are still in their early stages.

The Unfortunate Reality of Apathy, Misogyny, and Systemic Inequality

Given the current state of gender politics in America, there’s an unfortunate reality. That’s that a woman will only be elected president when both major parties nominate female candidates. This would eliminate the gendered comparisons that often hinder female candidates. Until then, deeply ingrained biases and systemic barriers will continue to thwart the aspirations of women like Kamala Harris.

Harris’s loss is a stark reminder of the work still needed to achieve gender equity in America. Voter apathy, misogyny, and systemic inequality remain significant hurdles. But as societal attitudes evolve, there is hope that future generations will break these barriers. And maybe even embrace the leadership potential of women.

More information about Kamala Harris can be found at her website:
KamalaHarris.com.