COVID is no longer filling intensive care units, but scientists are increasingly worried that the virus is quietly reshaping the nation’s health for decades to come. As research uncovers long-term damage to the brain, heart, immune system, and workforce, President Donald Trump’s second-term health agenda is moving in the opposite direction, cutting back on surveillance, research, and global cooperation. The risk, researchers say, is that policy choices made now could lock in a legacy of preventable disability and economic loss long after the political debate has moved on.
Instead of treating long COVID and other chronic fallout as a central public health challenge, the administration is acting as if the emergency is over and the bill has been paid. I see a widening gap between what emerging science says about persistent harm and what federal policy is prepared to fund, track, or even acknowledge, a gap that could define the Trump era’s imprint on the post-pandemic world.
What scientists are learning about COVID’s long tail
Researchers are no longer focused only on who lives or dies in the acute phase of infection, they are mapping how repeated encounters with the virus can accelerate aging and chronic disease. Studies highlighted by infectious disease experts describe long-term harm to multiple organs, including evidence of “accelerating aging of the brain” and higher risks of heart problems, blood clots, and immune dysfunction long after the initial illness. Federal officials in May 2023 declared an end to the national COVID pandemic, but more than two years later, clinicians are still documenting new patterns of neurological and cardiovascular damage that appear linked to prior infections.
Although covid has become less deadly in the short term, because of population immunization and mutations making the virus less severe, researchers warn that the cumulative effect of repeated infections may still be profound. Early data suggest that even people with mild or symptom-free cases can develop lingering fatigue, cognitive issues, or organ damage, and some of these findings have not yet been certified by peer review, which makes the emerging picture more unsettling rather than less. As one synthesis of current evidence notes, Although the virus now kills fewer people per infection, it may be quietly increasing the burden of chronic illness in ways that standard death statistics miss.
Trump-era health strategy at odds with that science
Against that backdrop, the Trump administration is reshaping federal COVID policy around the idea that the crisis is behind us, not evolving into a long-term public health challenge. The discoveries about persistent organ damage and cognitive decline raise fresh concerns about the Trump administration’s COVID policies, researchers say, because they are being made at the same time that federal leaders are winding down data collection, scaling back vaccination campaigns, and questioning the value of new booster investments. One detailed review notes that The discoveries are arriving just as the government is treating COVID as a solved problem rather than a chronic threat.
Trump’s health advisers have also leaned into skepticism about updated vaccines and long COVID research, even as scientists stress that shots remain one of the few tools that clearly reduce the risk of severe disease and some long-term complications. Though the shots were a critical tool early in the pandemic, experts now emphasize that their protective effects wane over time, which means booster campaigns and targeted outreach are still needed for older adults and high-risk groups. Current policy, however, is moving toward making vaccination a matter of individual choice with minimal public investment, despite warnings that such an approach ignores the waning protection and the mounting evidence of long-term harm.
Research cuts and the fight over long COVID
The tension is especially sharp in the realm of research funding, where scientists say they need more data just as the administration is pulling back. Long COVID’s reach into the workforce and health system is only beginning to be quantified, with estimates of millions of affected Americans and large numbers of lost work hours each year. Yet over the past two months, US President Donald Trump’s new administration has cancelled or delayed thousands of grants and contracts, including projects focused on post-viral syndromes, prompting a backlash from patient groups and researchers who argue that cutting funds now will leave the country flying blind. One account of this clash describes how Long COVID activists fought Trump team’s research cuts and, at least in some cases, won partial reversals.
These battles are unfolding in a broader context of scientific upheaval. Dec, Despite all the negatives, 2025 showcased the power, resilience and universality of science, but it was also a tumultuous year in which Trump’s policies triggered grant cuts, arrests, and lay-offs across multiple agencies. The administration has justified it as an effort to rein in bureaucracy and redirect resources, yet researchers warn that the damage to long-term projects, including those tracking post-COVID complications, may not be easily repaired. As one overview of the year notes, the combination of cancelled studies and staff departures has left many labs struggling to maintain continuity, a pattern that is especially dangerous for conditions like long COVID that require sustained follow-up and large cohorts, as described in the account of Dec and the scientific turbulence of 2025.
Global retreat: from WHO to weakened surveillance
The United States is not only pulling back at home, it is also stepping away from the global infrastructure that tracks and responds to emerging health threats. In January 2026, the United States officially ended its 77-year membership in the World Health Organization, a decision that finalized a process that began under former President Donald Trump and has now taken full effect. With the exit final, the WHO has lost its largest donor, which had contributed approximately 15 percent of its total budget, and that gap is already forcing cuts to surveillance programs and staff at WHO’s Geneva headquarters.
The domestic political symbolism of leaving the World Health Organization may play well with parts of Trump’s base, but the practical effect is to weaken the very systems that could warn of new variants or post-viral syndromes. In Jan, the decision was described as the moment when the United States officially ended its 77-year membership in the agency, with the exit framed as a reclaiming of sovereignty rather than a retreat from global health cooperation. The move, which the report notes began under President Donald Trump and has now taken full effect, has raised alarms among public health experts who see it as a step that will make it harder to coordinate responses to future pandemics and to understand how COVID’s long-term effects are playing out worldwide, concerns captured in the detailed account of In January 2026 and the US exit from WHO.
Scientists warn of “Trump effects” that could last decades
Inside the scientific community, there is growing anxiety that the current policy trajectory will leave a mark that outlives this administration. In March, some 1,900 m members of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, Medicine, which represent the country’s leading researchers, signed a statement warning about the long-term consequences of undermining federal science agencies and public health infrastructure. They pointed to “Trump effects” that could erode trust, drive talent away from government service, and slow the response to future crises, including the evolving challenge of long COVID, concerns laid out in detail in the analysis of In March and the broader question of whether US science can withstand Trump 2.0.
More from Morning Overview