Public trust in the CDC and FDA falls to new lows
American confidence in the nation’s two most visible health regulators has eroded to levels not seen in Gallup’s historical tracking. In the latest annual poll, only 26% of respondents rated the CDC as doing an excellent or good job, while 25% said the same of the FDA. Those numbers are not just low in isolation; they are the weakest readings either agency has posted in Gallup’s long-running surveys, which date to 2003 for the CDC and 2009 for the FDA.
The downward shift has practical consequences far beyond polling optics. Public health agencies depend on broad credibility to guide outbreak response, vaccination campaigns, food safety alerts and the interpretation of rapidly evolving medical evidence. When trust slips this far, even technically sound guidance can arrive with less force in the communities that need it most.
The survey sampled 1,000 adults during the first half of September. The CDC’s 26% favorable rating marked a five-point decline from 2025 and sat roughly 14 points below its pandemic-era standing. Back in 2017, 66% of respondents gave the agency positive marks. The FDA’s 25% favorable rating followed a similar trajectory, down from 27% in 2025 and far below its 2017 high of 46%.
Outbreaks, upheaval, and the erosion of credibility
The polling drop did not occur in a vacuum. The CDC and FDA have been under intense public scrutiny during a year marked by measles outbreaks and a multistate foodborne cyclospora investigation tied to iceberg lettuce. Both episodes place the agencies in a familiar but unforgiving position: they must identify risk quickly, communicate clearly, and maintain confidence while the evidence is still unfolding.
Leadership turnover and workforce reductions have also shaped the public view. Under Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., both agencies have faced upheaval that has been widely criticized by public health experts and industry groups. The CDC has experienced major leadership changes and staffing reductions, while the FDA has also been affected by personnel and policy disruption. When agencies are seen as unstable, the public often reads operational turbulence as a proxy for institutional weakness, even if the internal mechanics are more complicated.
One result is that ordinary Americans may now encounter federal health advice through a lens of skepticism before they ever hear the substance of the recommendation. In outbreak response, that slows the uptake of guidance on testing, isolation, recall notices and prevention measures. In vaccine policy, the damage can be deeper: distrust in the messenger can spill over into distrust of the underlying science.
Partisan gaps widened sharply after the pandemic
Gallup’s data also show that party identification has become a stronger divider than ever in how these agencies are judged. Since the start of President Trump’s second term, Republicans have become somewhat more favorable toward the CDC and FDA. The CDC’s positive rating among Republicans rose from 19% in 2024 to 29% in 2025 and 32% in 2026. The FDA moved from 23% in 2024 to 35% in 2025 and 36% in 2026.
The trajectory among Democrats moved in the opposite direction, and the decline was steep. For the CDC, favorable ratings fell from 65% in 2024 to 32% in 2025 and 20% in 2026. For the FDA, the favorable share dropped from 47% in 2024 to 22% in 2025 and 18% in 2026. Those are not minor fluctuations. They suggest a deep split in how voters interpret the competence and legitimacy of federal health authority itself.
A polarization pattern like this matters in clinical public health because it changes the environment in which recommendations land. A vaccine advisory, a food recall, or an outbreak warning does not simply compete with misinformation; it also competes with preexisting political identity. When trust becomes partisan, compliance can fragment along the same lines, weakening the reach of interventions that require broad participation.
The agencies now trail every other department in the poll
The CDC and FDA were rated lower than the other 10 agencies included in the survey. The Postal Service led the list with 58% favorable ratings. The CDC and FDA were the only two agencies in the poll that received more poor ratings than excellent or good ones.
In operational terms, that is a stark reversal. Agencies tasked with protecting population health are usually expected to benefit from a reservoir of goodwill, especially when threats such as infectious disease outbreaks and contaminated food products make their missions visible. Instead, both health agencies have fallen below peers whose work is less directly tied to life-and-death decision-making.
Funding fights in Congress will shape the next phase
Congress is now poised to revisit funding for the CDC, FDA and other agencies under the HHS umbrella. Lawmakers have already pushed back on White House proposals to cut budgets sharply and reorganize the department. Even so, reports suggest some parts of the agencies have not received the level of financial support they expected.
Budget decisions are not abstract. Staffing levels affect how fast epidemiologists can track outbreaks, how quickly regulators can review safety data, and how effectively agencies can communicate with hospitals, states and the public. Structural reorganization can also disrupt institutional memory, especially when experienced personnel depart faster than replacements can be trained.
The current ratings arrive just weeks before a midterm election in which healthcare is already emerging as a defining issue for many voters, especially on costs. Public opinion about the CDC and FDA may not decide the election on its own, but it adds another layer to a policy debate already shaped by frustration over prices, access and the reliability of federal institutions. In that environment, low trust is not merely a reputational problem; it becomes part of the political and clinical context in which health policy will be written and enforced.