Exclusive: Key US Infectious-Diseases Centre to Drop Pandemic Preparation

Why It Matters

Redirecting billions away from pandemic readiness could leave the United States more vulnerable to emerging zoonotic threats, while reshaping research funding priorities for biotech firms and public‑health agencies.

Key Takeaways

• NIAID redirects $2.2B from pandemic prep to basic immunology.
• “Biodefense” language removed from institute’s public web pages.
• New focus targets current US infections, allergic and autoimmune disorders.
• Critics warn reduced preparedness heightens outbreak risk.
• Leadership shift follows Trump-era dismissal of former director.

Pulse Analysis

The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases is undergoing its most significant strategic overhaul since its founding. By eliminating the terms "biodefense" and "pandemic preparedness" from official communications, the agency signals a decisive pivot away from speculative threat modeling toward research on immunology and infections that already burden American hospitals. This reorientation aligns with the new leadership’s narrative that past pandemic responses failed to protect public health, and it leverages the institute’s $6.6 billion budget to address chronic disease burdens such as allergies and autoimmune disorders.

Public‑health experts warn that the de‑prioritisation of emerging‑pathogen studies could erode the United States' early‑warning capabilities. Approximately one‑third of NIAID’s funding currently supports surveillance of zoonotic spillover and development of medical countermeasures for high‑consequence agents. Removing that financial support may slow vaccine platform innovation and diminish the nation’s capacity to rapidly respond to novel viruses, a concern echoed by academic leaders who stress that preparedness cannot be abandoned without increasing outbreak risk.

For the biotech and pharmaceutical sectors, the policy shift reshapes the funding landscape. Companies that have relied on NIH grants for pandemic‑focused platforms may need to pivot toward basic immunology or chronic‑infection pipelines. Meanwhile, venture capital is likely to re‑allocate capital toward therapeutics addressing prevalent U.S. diseases, potentially accelerating drug development in those areas. The long‑term impact will hinge on whether the new focus delivers measurable health improvements without compromising the nation’s ability to anticipate and mitigate future pandemics.

Exclusive: Key US infectious-diseases centre to drop pandemic preparation

NEWS · 13 February 2026 · By Max Kozlov

Staff members at the United States’s premier infectious‑disease research institute have been instructed to remove the words “biodefense” and “pandemic preparedness” from the institute’s web pages, according to e‑mails Nature has obtained.

The directive comes amid a broader shake‑up at the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), one of 27 institutes and centres at the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The NIAID is expected to deprioritise the two topics in an overhaul of its funded research projects, according to four NIAID employees who spoke to Nature on the condition of anonymity, because they are not authorised to speak to the press.

NIH director Jay Bhattacharya explained the restructure at an event with other top agency officials on 30 January. “It’s a complete transformation of [the NIAID] away from this old model” that has historically prioritised research on HIV, biodefence and pandemic preparedness, he said. The institute will focus more on basic immunology and other infectious diseases currently affecting people in the United States, he added, rather than on predicting future diseases.

About one‑third of the NIAID’s US $6.6‑billion budget currently funds projects involving emerging infectious diseases and biodefence. The research studies pathogens of concern and monitors their spread, and develops medical countermeasures against threats from radiation exposure, chemicals and infectious diseases.

Nahid Bhadelia, director of Boston University’s Center on Emerging Infectious Diseases in Massachusetts, says the decision to deprioritise these areas will leave people in the United States more vulnerable to pathogens that are constantly evolving in wildlife around the world and spilling into human populations, sometimes sparking outbreaks. “Just because we say we’re going to stop caring about these issues doesn’t make the issues go away — it just makes us less prepared,” she says.

A spokesperson for the NIH, the world’s largest public funder of biomedical science, based in Bethesda, Maryland, says, “NIAID’s new vision sharpens its focus on the interconnected pillars of infectious diseases and immunology, expanding opportunities for research that address the most pressing challenges to Americans’ health today.” The spokesperson declined to respond to Nature’s queries about the agency’s specific plans to restructure the institute.

Political heat

The NIAID is currently under the leadership of acting director Jeffery Taubenberger, after its previous director, infectious‑disease physician Jeanne Marrazzo, was fired by the administration of US President Donald Trump after less than two years into the post. Her predecessor, Anthony Fauci, held the job for 38 years.

Fauci and the institute have been scrutinised by Trump and other Republican politicians as a result of public‑health measures used during the COVID‑19 pandemic — such as lockdowns and school closures — which they say resulted in people losing trust in the country’s health agencies. (During the pandemic, Fauci offered recommendations on how to prevent the spread of the virus, but neither Fauci nor the NIAID set policy for public‑health measures.)

To restore trust, Bhattacharya, Taubenberger and Taubenberger’s senior adviser, John Powers, outlined a “new vision” for the institute in a commentary published in Nature Medicine on 16 January.

“NIAID’s work clearly neither prevented the pandemic nor prevented Americans from experiencing among the highest levels of all‑cause excess mortality in the developed world during that time,” they wrote. “Given the increasing prevalence of allergic and autoimmune disorders and the burden of common infections in the population over the past few decades, the NIAID must focus research on these conditions with a greater sense of urgency.”

New direction

The instructions to agency staff members to rebrand the institute’s language are only the first step towards implementing this new vision, according to the NIAID employees. NIH principal deputy director Matthew Memoli has ordered more changes, including the review of the portfolio of grants funding biodefence and pandemic preparedness, in the coming weeks and months, they say.

---

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-026-00468-1

References

1. Taubenberger, J. K., Powers, J. H. & Bhattacharya, J. Nature Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-025-04160-1 (2026).