Public health leadership is measured not only by scientific expertise or institutional capacity, but by the willingness to communicate clearly, consistently, and transparently during moments of uncertainty. Americans expect and deserve timely information about health threats, practical guidance to reduce risk, and reassurance that the nation’s public health institutions are actively monitoring emerging challenges. Increasingly, however, that expectation is going unmet.
The growing outbreak of cyclosporiasis offers a troubling illustration. With more than 3,000 reported cases as of mid-July 2026 and the number continuing to climb, the United States is experiencing one of the largest documented outbreaks of this foodborne parasitic disease in recent years. Yet the federal response has been marked less by visible leadership than by conspicuous silence. While state and local health departments continue investigating cases and clinicians diagnose and treat patients, there has been little sustained national communication that reflects the seriousness of the situation or helps Americans understand how to protect themselves.
Cyclosporiasis, caused by the parasite Cyclospora cayetanensis, is not new. The infection typically spreads through contaminated fresh produce and causes prolonged diarrhea, fatigue, abdominal cramping, nausea, and weight loss. Although healthy individuals generally recover with appropriate antibiotic treatment, illness can be severe and prolonged, particularly among older adults, young children, and people with compromised immune systems. Rapid public communication about outbreaks serves two essential purposes: helping consumers reduce their exposure and supporting efforts to identify contaminated food sources before additional people become ill.
Instead, Americans have largely been left to piece together information from scattered state advisories, inconsistent media reports, and occasional technical updates. This fragmented communication environment undermines public confidence precisely when national coordination is most needed. One of the first rules of public health is to communicate with the public early and often with clear, consistent, and transparent messaging. If the COVID-19 pandemic taught us anything, it is that silence, inconsistency, or mixed messages from federal health leaders carry real consequences. Effective risk communication is every bit as important as surveillance, laboratory testing, and epidemiologic investigation in protecting the public’s health.
The communication vacuum cannot be separated from the broader dismantling of federal public health infrastructure over the past 18 months. Deep staffing reductions across key health agencies, elimination of experienced scientific and communications personnel, restructuring of long-established programs, and reduced investment in surveillance capacity have collectively weakened the government’s ability to detect, investigate, and respond to health threats. Public health systems function as integrated networks; when epidemiologists, laboratory scientists, communications specialists, and emergency preparedness experts disappear, the consequences extend well beyond internal organizational charts.
Equally concerning is the apparent reluctance of senior federal leaders to speak directly to the American people. Public health emergencies require trusted voices willing to explain what is known, acknowledge what remains uncertain, and provide practical recommendations grounded in evidence. Silence creates space for confusion, speculation, and misinformation. It also signals an abdication of one of government’s most fundamental public health responsibilities: keeping people informed.
This leadership gap extends to the highest levels of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., has frequently attracted attention through statements on a range of controversial health issues. Yet during an expanding foodborne disease outbreak affecting thousands of Americans, there has been no comparable, sustained effort to educate the public about cyclosporiasis, reinforce food safety practices, or demonstrate visible federal coordination. Leadership is not measured by media appearances alone; it is measured by whether communication helps protect people’s health.
The absence of consistent federal messaging also places additional burdens on state and local health departments. These agencies remain the backbone of outbreak detection and response, but they rely on strong national coordination, laboratory support, interstate data sharing, and unified public communications. When federal leadership recedes, local agencies must fill gaps with limited resources while simultaneously responding to increasing public concern. The result is a patchwork response that varies across jurisdictions rather than a coherent national strategy.
The consequences extend beyond this single outbreak. Every episode in which federal institutions fail to communicate effectively erodes public trust. Trust is not rebuilt through slogans or political rhetoric; it is earned through transparency, scientific integrity, and regular engagement with communities. During outbreaks, uncertainty is inevitable. Silence, however, is a choice. As I write in my new book, “Aftershocks,” pathogens exploit biological vulnerabilities, while misinformation exploits institutional silence. Both flourish when leadership is absent.
The United States has long been recognized as a global leader in epidemiology, outbreak investigation, laboratory science, and emergency preparedness. That reputation was built over decades through sustained investment in institutions and the professionals who served within them (many of whom remain in their posts today under significant duress). Allowing those capabilities to erode while diminishing public communication represents a dangerous departure from that legacy that we have unfortunately also witnessed over the past 18 months.
Cyclosporiasis will eventually subside, as foodborne outbreaks often do. The larger question is whether the lessons will be learned before the next public health threat emerges. Infectious diseases do not pause while governments reorganize, budgets shrink, or leadership remains quiet. Pathogens exploit gaps in surveillance, response, and communication alike. Every missed opportunity to strengthen those defenses increases the likelihood that the next outbreak will be detected later, spread farther, and exact a greater human and economic toll.
Public health leadership requires visible, credible voices that inform rather than alarm, educate rather than confuse, and reassure through transparency rather than silence. Americans deserve federal public health leaders who recognize that communication is not peripheral to public health; it is one of its most essential interventions when it is grounded in science. And they deserve a public health infrastructure robust enough to detect threats early, respond rapidly, and support the clear, coordinated communication that protects lives.
Dr. José M. Zuniga