As the United States begins the long trek toward the US midterm elections 2026 public health infrastructure is shifting from a background administrative function to a primary battleground for political candidates. For decades, public health was largely viewed as a neutral, scientific endeavor—focused on sanitation, vaccination, and disease surveillance—but a recent wave of systemic changes has pushed it into the center of the partisan fray.
In response to what they describe as a period of “malice, neglect and ignorance” within federal health agencies, a grassroots coalition has launched a strategic effort to force candidates to take explicit stands on health policy. The organization, Defend Public Health, recently introduced the “People’s Health Platform,” a set of guiding principles designed to move healthcare access and pandemic preparedness from the margins of campaign literature to the forefront of the national conversation.
The movement arrives at a volatile moment for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Under the leadership of Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the agency has faced intense scrutiny for slashing routine childhood immunizations, reducing state-level public health funding, and proposing the termination of Medicare and Medicaid payments to hospitals providing gender-affirming care to pediatric patients.
For those running for office in 2026, the goal is no longer to avoid the “politicization” of medicine, but to weaponize it in favor of systemic stability. “Public health needs to be a higher priority,” said Richard Pan, a pediatrician running to represent California’s sixth congressional district. “I know people secure really nervous that this will politicize public health. But it’s not been a priority. And it’s already been politicized.”
The People’s Health Platform: A Blueprint for 2026
The People’s Health Platform is not merely a list of grievances but a policy framework that Defend Public Health is urging candidates across the political spectrum to endorse. The platform emphasizes a shift toward a collective responsibility model of health, contrasting it with the current administration’s focus on individual choice.
At the core of the platform is the guarantee of universal access to healthcare, which Elizabeth Jacobs, a professor emerita at the University of Arizona and founding member of the organization, describes as the most critical pillar of public health. The platform also advocates for several high-stakes interventions:
- Reproductive and Gender-Affirming Care: Protecting and expanding access to contraception, abortion, and gender-affirming healthcare.
- Systemic Funding: Ending the “boom-and-bust cycle” of funding—where resources flood in during a pandemic and vanish during periods of stability—and establishing a baseline of support similar to that of fire departments.
- Global Cooperation: Rejoining international health bodies, including the World Health Organization (WHO), to coordinate on future pandemic threats.
- Economic Reform: Implementing taxes on billionaires to fund public health infrastructure and addressing the “affordability crisis” through lower drug prices.
Nina Schwalbe, a public health leader running for New York’s 12th congressional district, argues that these measures are “non-negotiable.” Schwalbe is pushing for a more aggressive timeline that includes the restoration and expansion of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), with the long-term goal of transitioning the U.S. To a single-payer system. “Where you live, what you earn, or where you were born should not determine the care or services you receive,” Schwalbe said.
Professional Standards vs. Political Appointments
A significant point of contention in the current health landscape is the qualification of those leading federal agencies. The controversy surrounding the nomination of Casey Means for U.S. Surgeon General has highlighted a potential rift between political loyalty and professional licensure.
Officers of the U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned Corps are required by law to be licensed in their respective fields. Because Means is not licensed, the confirmation process has stalled with several senators remaining silent on the appointment. This has sparked a broader debate among public health advocates about the need to insulate civil service roles from political interference.
Pan argues that the U.S. Must establish stronger protections for civil servants to ensure that those managing the nation’s health are qualified experts rather than political appointees. “Do we have those kinds of requirements for other appointees?” Pan asked, suggesting that the 2026 midterms should be a catalyst for creating permanent safeguards against the appointment of unqualified personnel to critical health roles.
The Human Cost of ‘Individualistic’ Health
The clash over the 2026 elections is fundamentally a clash of philosophies: public health versus individualistic health. Elizabeth Jacobs notes that the current administration has placed the burden of health entirely on the individual, often ignoring the systemic barriers—such as poverty or lack of insurance—that make “individual choices” impossible for millions of Americans.
The real-world implications of this shift are already manifesting in several critical areas:
| Issue | Systemic Impact | Campaign Priority |
|---|---|---|
| Rural Hospital Closures | Loss of emergency and maternal care in underserved areas. | Funding restoration and stabilization. |
| Disease Outbreaks | Resurgence of vaccine-preventable diseases like measles. | Combatting misinformation and restoring trust. |
| Insurance Premiums | Skyrocketing costs leading to deferred care. | Drug price caps and ACA expansion. |
| Reproductive Bans | Increased maternal mortality and legal volatility. | Codifying reproductive rights into law. |
Jacobs believes that as these policies directly affect families—through the closure of a local clinic or the inability to afford a prescription—voters will turn into more attuned to the necessity of a robust public health system. “We seek to reach out to people on both sides of the aisle, because I do believe that fundamentally, parents, no matter where they are, want what’s best for their kids,” Jacobs said.
Disclaimer: This article is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical or legal advice.
Defend Public Health volunteers are now actively approaching candidates from all political parties to solicit endorsements of the People’s Health Platform. The organization intends to make these endorsements public to provide voters with a clear record of which candidates commit to protecting public health infrastructure. Following the 2026 elections, the group plans to release “backing documents” to help newly elected officials translate these principles into actionable legislation.
We invite you to share your thoughts on the role of public health in upcoming elections in the comments below.
Related reading
