Lead
Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, director of the National Institutes of Health, will take on the additional role of acting director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, administration officials said on Feb. 18, 2026. He will keep his N.I.H. post while leading the C.D.C. until President Trump names and has the Senate confirm a permanent director. The move follows a period of rapid leadership turnover at the C.D.C. since Mr. Trump returned to the White House. Public health experts warn the dual assignment could strain both agencies amid staffing and funding shortfalls.
Key Takeaways
- Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, currently N.I.H. director, will serve as acting C.D.C. director until a permanent nominee is appointed and confirmed by the Senate.
- Officials said Bhattacharya will retain leadership of the N.I.H. while temporarily supervising the C.D.C., a rare dual role for heads of major federal health agencies.
- The C.D.C. has experienced high turnover and internal disruptions since President Trump returned to the White House, leaving many career leaders departed.
- Bhattacharya is a physician and medical economist who left Stanford to join the administration; he does not have formal public health training but has researched population well‑being.
- Public health experts, including former C.D.C. officials, caution that running both agencies simultaneously is likely unsustainable and could weaken national outbreak preparedness.
Background
The C.D.C. and the N.I.H. are distinct in mission and structure: the N.I.H. is the federal biomedical research agency, while the C.D.C. leads public health surveillance and emergency response. Historically, each agency has separate directors with different statutory responsibilities and relationships with career staff and external partners. The C.D.C. has seen a string of leaders since Mr. Trump returned to the White House, a period marked by departures of long‑serving career managers and several politically driven personnel changes.
Congressional oversight and Senate confirmation play central roles in senior public‑health appointments; the C.D.C. director position now requires Senate confirmation, meaning any permanent nominee will face a public vetting process. Over recent years, the C.D.C.’s operating capacity has been constrained by budget adjustments, reorganizations, and the loss of institutional memory tied to career staff exits. Those trends inform why public health observers reacted strongly to the announcement that the N.I.H. director will temporarily assume C.D.C. leadership.
Main Event
On Feb. 18, 2026, two administration officials who requested anonymity to discuss personnel matters said Dr. Bhattacharya will serve as acting director of the C.D.C. while continuing to run the N.I.H. The officials described the arrangement as temporary, pending a White House nomination for a permanent director and subsequent Senate confirmation. They emphasized continuity of leadership but did not disclose operational details about how responsibilities will be divided between the two agencies.
Bhattacharya, trained as a physician and medical economist, left Stanford University to join the administration. His academic work has focused on population health metrics and well‑being rather than traditional public‑health administration. Administration officials framed his experience with population‑level research as relevant to the C.D.C.’s mission, while critics note the absence of formal public‑health credentials for the role.
The appointment follows a period during which the C.D.C. lost several career leaders and endured staffing changes. Officials acknowledged those human‑resource gaps but argued a temporary acting director can provide short‑term direction. Opponents and some public health specialists counter that simultaneous leadership of both the N.I.H. and C.D.C. risks diluting attention at each agency and undermining rapid response capability.
Analysis & Implications
The dual assignment raises operational and oversight questions. Leading the N.I.H. involves guiding a large research portfolio, managing grant programs and scientific institutes; the C.D.C. requires day‑to‑day public‑health surveillance, outbreak response coordination and communications with states and local health departments. Combining those workloads could force delegation of critical duties and slow decision timelines at either agency.
Budgetary and staffing constraints at the C.D.C. intensify the risk. With many career officials gone and recent funding adjustments cited by multiple observers, the agency’s institutional resilience is diminished. Experts warn that in the event of a novel outbreak or sudden public‑health emergency, split leadership could hamper swift operational choices and communications coordination with state partners.
Politically, the requirement that a permanent C.D.C. director be Senate‑confirmed makes the next phase uncertain. Any White House nominee will be scrutinized for scientific credentials, public‑health experience and policy views. Given partisan divides in recent years over health policy and pandemic response, confirmation could become contentious and protracted, extending the acting arrangement.
Internationally, the C.D.C.’s credibility matters for global health diplomacy and technical assistance. Perceptions of weakened leadership or organizational instability risk reducing U.S. influence in multilateral disease surveillance and cooperative response efforts. Allies and global health organizations often rely on stable technical partnerships; prolonged instability could complicate those relationships.
Comparison & Data
The N.I.H. primarily funds and conducts biomedical research through institutes and centers, supporting long‑term scientific discovery. The C.D.C. focuses on public‑health surveillance, outbreak detection and operational guidance to state and local health authorities. These complementary but distinct mandates typically require dedicated leadership with different management emphases—research strategy versus rapid operational response—highlighting why a single individual simultaneously heading both agencies is unusual and operationally challenging.
Reactions & Quotes
“I think the C.D.C. is one disaster away from being a disaster itself.”
Michael T. Osterholm, University of Minnesota (infectious disease expert)
Osterholm’s comment underscores concern among infectious‑disease specialists about the C.D.C.’s reduced bench strength and the risks of divided leadership during crises. His warning reflects broader anxiety in the public‑health community about preparedness capacity.
“It will be nearly impossible for Dr. Bhattacharya to run both the nation’s biomedical research agency and its public‑health agency.”
Public health experts (collective assessment)
Multiple former C.D.C. officials and public‑health scholars expressed similar skepticism, saying day‑to‑day operations and emergency response functions demand full‑time focus that dual leadership is unlikely to provide. Administration officials, by contrast, portrayed the appointment as a stopgap measure to maintain continuity pending a permanent nomination.
Unconfirmed
- Precise operational plan for how Bhattacharya will split time and responsibilities between the N.I.H. and C.D.C. remains unclear and unconfirmed.
- No public timeline has been announced for when the White House will present a permanent C.D.C. nominee to the Senate.
- Specific internal staffing or structural changes at the C.D.C. tied to this temporary leadership shift have not been disclosed.
Bottom Line
The temporary assignment of the N.I.H. director to lead the C.D.C. highlights tensions between administrative continuity and functional capacity in U.S. public health. While intended as an interim fix, the dual role intensifies concerns about whether both agencies can sustain full operational effectiveness under one leader, particularly given recent staff departures and funding pressures.
Key near‑term developments to watch are the White House timeline for naming a permanent nominee, the Senate’s response during confirmation, and any operational guidance the administration provides detailing how responsibilities will be divided. For public‑health practitioners and policymakers, the core issue will be whether the arrangement preserves the C.D.C.’s capacity to detect and respond to health threats promptly.