COVID-19: How Trauma, Politics, and Denial Shape Pandemic Response

Six years after the initial Covid shutdowns of March 2020, the United States continues to grapple with the lingering effects of a trauma that has become deeply entrenched in the nation’s political landscape. Despite a widespread desire to move on, the pandemic remains a potent force shaping American policy and the collective psyche. The resurgence of Donald Trump in 2025, and his renewed focus on dismantling scientific and medical institutions that challenged him during the Covid-19 crisis, underscores this ongoing struggle.

However, by the time of his second inauguration, the national conversation surrounding Covid had evolved. The focus shifted from the immediate terror of the pandemic to examining what went wrong, assigning blame, and attempting to address systemic failures. This progression mirrors a common pattern observed throughout history: pandemics tend to elicit predictable reactions, often unfolding in a sequence. As outlined in “Whiplash: From the Battle for Obamacare to the War on Science,” this pattern typically begins with denial, followed by panic, then weariness and resistance, and finally, anger and the search for scapegoats.

The Initial Impulse: Denial and Downplaying the Threat

The earliest response to a novel infectious threat is often a powerful urge to ignore or minimize its severity. President Woodrow Wilson notably remained silent during the 1918-1919 Great Influenza pandemic. Similarly, during the early stages of Covid-19, Donald Trump actively sought to downplay the virus’s potential impact. From January through early March 2020, both Trump and his advisors dismissed the seriousness of the threat, accusing political opponents of exaggerating the risks for partisan gain. He even criticized increased testing efforts, arguing that more tests would inevitably lead to more confirmed cases. He reportedly suppressed the warnings of CDC officials who accurately predicted a looming public health crisis. As CNN documented, Trump repeatedly asserted that the virus would simply “go away.”

It’s important to note that Trump wasn’t alone in initially underestimating the risk. Many experts also remained skeptical until the evidence of Covid-19’s lethality and transmissibility became undeniable.

From Panic to Weariness: The Evolving Response

As the contagion spread, panic inevitably set in. In the first week of March 2020, Latest York City experienced a doubling of Covid-19 diagnoses every two days. Makeshift morgues were established using refrigerator trucks as the death toll climbed. The stock market crashed, and even Trump’s trusted advisor, Jared Kushner, received a stark warning from New York Governor Andrew Cuomo about the imminent collapse of the city’s healthcare system. Kushner and the health care team ultimately recommended a 15-day shutdown, a measure that Trump reportedly welcomed as a less drastic alternative to a full military lockdown.

However, the initial surge of emergency measures couldn’t be sustained indefinitely. President Joe Biden discovered this firsthand less than a year into his term. Public tolerance for heroic measures waned, mirroring the resistance often seen after prolonged periods of war or societal disruption. Vaccine and mask mandates faced widespread opposition. As the authors of “Whiplash” detail, a turning point came in April 2022 when an Ohio health official reported a sudden decline in vaccine demand. The once-coveted vaccines became associated with partisan divides, perceived elite overreach, and a growing skepticism towards medicine and public health, particularly in red states.

The Search for Scapegoats and the Targeting of Science

By the start of Trump’s second term in 2025, the nation was poised for a surge in anger and the search for someone to blame. During his first term, Trump fueled anti-Asian sentiment with inflammatory rhetoric, referring to Covid-19 as the “China virus” and “Kung Flu.” According to a Pew Research Center report, by 2022, one in three Asian Americans, and 39% of Chinese Americans, reported experiencing or knowing someone who had been threatened or attacked since the pandemic began.

Historically, pandemics have often led to the scapegoating of vulnerable populations. Past outbreaks of cholera, yellow fever, and other diseases have been blamed on immigrants and marginalized groups. In the case of Trump’s second term, the focus shifted to the scientific community, whom he accused of deliberately misleading the country. He portrayed health officials, particularly Anthony Fauci, as untrustworthy and power-hungry, and dismissed their agencies – the CDC, FDA, NIH, and WHO – as unreliable and even malicious.

This antagonism towards science was unprecedented in pandemic history. It stemmed, in part, from Trump’s personal animosity towards leading scientific figures who had challenged his proposed “miracle cures” – sunlight, bleach, hydroxychloroquine, and convalescent plasma – and delayed the approval of a vaccine until after the election. Ironically, the FDA-approved vaccine that he once touted would later be rejected by many of his supporters due to his attacks on the agency.

Amnesia and the Erosion of Preparedness

The final stage in this pattern is often a desire to forget the trauma and return to normalcy. While understandable, this impulse can be detrimental to future preparedness. As the authors of “Whiplash” point out, the current trend of cutbacks in infectious disease research at the NIH, the dismantling of the CDC, and the cessation of Covid-era public health funding for states and localities leave the nation less prepared for future pandemics than it was for Covid-19. This denial of experience is psychologically soothing, but strategically dangerous.

Experts widely agree that more pandemics are inevitable. While resources are dedicated to combating hypothetical attacks from rogue states, the nation remains vulnerable to an unseen pathogen lurking in nature, ready to initiate another pandemic cycle. The Trump administration, in its initial response, emphasized early action, including travel restrictions from China and the rapid development of a testing system, but these efforts were overshadowed by subsequent messaging and policy decisions.

Looking Ahead: The Need for a Thorough Investigation

A comprehensive, nonpartisan, and evidence-based investigation of the Covid-19 experience is urgently needed. Such an investigation, akin to the 9/11 Commission, could identify what went right and what went wrong, assess the effectiveness of various interventions (masks, school closures, vaccines), and inform future pandemic preparedness strategies. However, the current political climate and the erosion of public health infrastructure make such an undertaking increasingly unlikely.

The question isn’t whether another pandemic will strike, but whether the United States will learn from the lessons of Covid-19 and adequately prepare for the inevitable challenges ahead. The current trajectory suggests a dangerous level of complacency and a troubling disregard for the scientific expertise that is essential for protecting public health.