Public Health Autonomy and Rising Nationalism

The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the central role of public health institutions in managing large-scale emergencies, while exposing tensions between scientific expertise, political leadership, and societal trust. In many countries, pandemic management became closely tied to political decision-making, generating public controversy, institutional strain, and long-term debate about the independence and authority of public health systems. These challenges have developed alongside rising nationalism, populism, and political polarisation, raising urgent questions about the future of evidence-based policymaking.

Pandemic responses also varied widely across countries. Some governments relied on institutionally led strategies that emphasised scientific independence and continuity in public health leadership, while others used more centralised or politically driven decision-making structures. Policy diffusion research also suggests that governments sometimes adopted responses influenced by geopolitical alignment, neighbouring countries, or ideological positioning, rather than domestic epidemiological conditions alone.

While COVID-19 provides an important lens through which to examine these issues, the challenges extend beyond the pandemic. Political interference, polarisation, misinformation, declining institutional trust, and tensions between individual freedoms and collective protection can affect public health governance across a wide range of health threats and policy settings.

This Research Topic explores the relationship between political change and the autonomy, legitimacy, ethics, and governance of public health institutions. It will examine how political ideologies, institutional trust, ethical frameworks, misinformation, and governance models influenced public health decision-making. We welcome contemporary, historical, and comparative work, including but not limited to research relating directly to COVID-19, that can inform stronger, more trustworthy, democratically accountable, and professionally independent public health systems, able to respond effectively to future crises.

We welcome manuscripts addressing three connected areas:

1. Public health governance in the context of nationalism, populism, and science scepticism
• nationalism, populism, and their influence on public health governance and policy responses;
• science scepticism, anti-science movements, misinformation, fact-checking, and the politicisation of health communication;
• public health governance in fragile, polarised, or politically unstable settings;
• the influence of geopolitical alignment, policy diffusion, and international emulation on public health strategies;
• the future of evidence-based policymaking in increasingly polarised societies.

2. Public health autonomy and political polarisation
• public health autonomy and the relationship between scientific institutions and political leadership;
• comparative analyses of institutionally led and politically led approaches to public health decision-making;
• institutional trust, public compliance, and the legitimacy of public health measures;
• the effects of political polarisation on the authority, communication, and independence of public health institutions;
• lessons from COVID-19 and other health crises for protecting public health institutions in populist, authoritarian, or highly polarised political environments.

3. Public health ethics and governance
• public health ethics, democratic accountability, and health justice, particularly in times of crisis;
• ethical tensions between individual freedoms, collective protection, and the exercise of emergency or state powers;
• the role of national public health institutes in emergency governance and pandemic preparedness;
• historical and contemporary perspectives on public health governance during emergencies and periods of political change;
• approaches to balancing scientific independence, democratic legitimacy, transparency, and accountability;
• principles and institutional safeguards for resilient, trustworthy, and professionally independent public health systems.

Please indicate in your summary which theme you believe your paper falls under.

Potential article types include original research, policy analyses, comparative international studies, reviews, perspectives, ethical reflections, and case studies examining the intersection of public health governance and political change.

Article types and fees

This Research Topic accepts the following article types, unless otherwise specified in the Research Topic description:

• Brief Research Report
• Clinical Trial
• Community Case Study
• Editorial
• FAIR² Data
• General Commentary
• Hypothesis and Theory
• Methods
• Mini Review
• ... View all formats

Articles that are accepted for publication by our external editors following rigorous peer review incur a publishing fee charged to Authors, institutions, or funders.

Article types

This Research Topic accepts the following article types, unless otherwise specified in the Research Topic description:

• Brief Research Report
• Clinical Trial
• Community Case Study
• Editorial
• FAIR² Data
• General Commentary
• Hypothesis and Theory
• Methods
• Mini Review
• Opinion
• Original Research
• Perspective
• Policy and Practice Reviews
• Policy Brief
• Review
• Systematic Review
• Technology and Code

Keywords: public health governance, public health autonomy, pandemic governance, scientific independence, evidence-based policymaking, institutional trust, political polarization, populism, nationalism, misinformation, public health ethics, pandemic preparedness

Important note: All contributions to this Research Topic must be within the scope of the section and journal to which they are submitted, as defined in their mission statements. Frontiers reserves the right to guide an out-of-scope manuscript to a more suitable section or journal at any stage of peer review.