The COVID-19 pandemic that swept around the world beginning in early 2020 was an unprecedented public health crisis in modern times. By the end of the pandemic, the U.S. had recorded over 1.1 million deaths, with mortality rates disproportionately affecting older Americans and those with underlying health conditions. This gave the U.S. the dubious distinction of having the highest death toll of any large country, amounting to 16% of all global deaths despite only having 4.2% of world population. The national response involved sweeping measures including mask mandates, business closures, school shutdowns, and eventually, vaccine requirements in many sectors. But these measures were hampered by confusion over accountability, public resistance, and what was widely seen as a lack of decisive action from the White House - which probably cost President Trump the 2020 election.
These restrictions prompted intense debate about the balance between public health imperatives and individual liberties. While studies have shown that early intervention measures like social distancing and masking helped reduce transmission rates, the economic and social costs were substantial. School closures, in particular, resulted in significant learning loss for many students, with disadvantaged communities bearing a disproportionate burden.
Extensive research following the pandemic has shown that many of these interventions were justified in the early phases of the pandemic when uncertainty was high and hospital systems were at risk of being overwhelmed. And international evidence suggests that a more rapid and coordinated response could have significantly limited the severity and duration of the emergency, and therefore saved many thousands of lives. However, as our understanding of the virus evolved, some restrictions remained in place longer than necessary in certain jurisdictions, highlighting the need for adaptive approaches based on evolving scientific evidence.
Given the enormous impact of the pandemic, the fact that it is only a question of 'when' not 'if' there will be another one, as well as continuing issues with other infection diseases such as measles and tuberculosis, let's take a look at what state legislators are doing to prepare and save lives.
Washington's Evidence-Based Approach
Washington's House Bill 1531, which has been enacted and took effect in April 2025, represents one legislative response to these lessons. This Democrat-sponsored bill firmly establishes that "public health responses to address communicable diseases be guided by the best available science on the safety and efficacy of evidence-based measures to control the spread of such diseases, including immunizations and vaccines." It carefully uses the phrase 'best available science', acknowledging that particularly in the early phases of a health crisis there may not be definitive evidence as to the best approach but this should not prevent the swift implementation of measures with the best chance of controlling spread and mortality.
The Washington legislature recognized that "communicable diseases remain a real threat to our communities and many are increasing in prevalence and severity." The bill specifically mentions H1N1 virus (avian flu), tuberculosis, and sexually transmitted infections as ongoing concerns that require robust public health responses.
What makes HB 1531 particularly noteworthy is its focus on public education and communication. The pandemic response was severely hampered by widespread misinformation about the disease, particularly on social media, and public officials struggled to get evidence-based messages across to the public. This bill aims to address that by ensuring "that the public receives timely, well-researched, evidence-based, and science-driven information to make informed choices so that they can take personal control of their health and the health of their families."
Perhaps most significantly, the bill prohibits state and local governments from enacting policies that would prevent the implementation of evidence-based public health measures. This effectively nullifies local government from blocking state-wide controls, which could render them ineffective by providing pockets where the disease can thrive.
The National Landscape: Partisan Divides
Analysis of public health legislation across the country reveals stark partisan differences in approach. The map below shows the key bills identified in the BillTrack50 database. Click a state to see the bills, and then click 'Detail' to see the actual bill text.
Of the 57 identified bills, 46 are primarily Republican-sponsored, while only 9 are Democrat-sponsored, with 2 sponsored by committees. This imbalance itself tells a story about which political party feels most compelled to change public health emergency powers in the wake of COVID-19.
Republican-sponsored bills predominantly focus on restricting public health powers and limiting executive authority. These bills frequently aim to prohibit vaccine mandates, prevent compliance with international health organizations like the WHO, and curtail governors' emergency powers.
In contrast, Democrat-sponsored bills, like Washington's HB 1531, generally focus on strengthening public health infrastructure and ensuring that scientific evidence guides health policy decisions.
International Health Organization Restrictions
A notable trend is the proliferation of bills seeking to prevent states from complying with World Health Organization recommendations. Twelve bills in our dataset relate to WHO restrictions, all but one of which are Republican-sponsored.
Florida's H6011, H6035, and S340 exemplify this approach. These bills aim to prevent state compliance with WHO guidelines unless they are specifically enacted into state law, effectively giving state legislatures veto power over international health recommendations. Idaho's S1038 similarly declares that "the state of Idaho shall not be compelled to engage in the enforcement of requirements or mandates issued by the World Health Organization."
These bills reflect concerns about sovereignty and democratic accountability in global health governance, reflecting a widespread distrust on the right with transnational bodies. In January 2025, as one of his first acts in office, President Trump withdrew the U.S. from the WHO, "due to the organization’s mishandling of the COVID-19 pandemic" and because it "continues to demand unfairly onerous payments from the United States..."
Vaccine Mandate Restrictions
Another common theme is the restriction of vaccine mandates. Connecticut's SB 707, for instance, aims to prohibit the state from mandating "experimental or emergency vaccinations" and from requiring disclosure of vaccination status. This Republican-sponsored bill reflects concerns about medical autonomy that gained prominence during the COVID-19 pandemic and continues a long running trend of such restrictions. This approach is also supported by the White House. In February the president signed an executive order prohibiting Covid vaccine mandates in schools, ensuring that "American students are not forced to choose between their education and their medical freedom."
Other bills, such as New York's A3325, seek to restrict any non-medical exemptions to mandates by removing religious and other reasons, acknowledging that vaccination programs can only succeed with very high rates of participation, and that allowing unvaccinated individuals into crowded environments likes classrooms puts those students who do have valid medical reasons for not being vaccinated at risk.
Gubernatorial Powers: Restrictions and Expansions
The majority of bills addressing executive authority seek to restrict gubernatorial powers during emergencies. Twelve bills aim to limit governors' emergency powers, compared to just two that potentially expand them.
Bills like Maine's LD551 ("An Act to Restore Balanced Emergency Powers") and Minnesota's HF288 require legislative approval to extend emergency declarations beyond a short initial period, typically 5-45 days. New York's S01435 "restores the legislative checks and balances to any emergency declaration that exceeds forty-five days." Even the bills categorized as potentially expanding governor powers, like Iowa's HF279 and Texas's SB871, contain provisions that both grant and limit executive authority in different contexts.
Republican-sponsored bills like Texas's HB523 and Florida's H6011 explicitly prevent governors from closing businesses, while Oklahoma's SB762 restricts imposing mask mandates without legislative approval. Kansas's SB40 empowers citizens to challenge health orders in court within 72 hours, while Idaho's S1038 prohibits enforcing WHO directives. Montana's HB888 prevents local governments from imposing business access restrictions.
These constraints reflect a wholesale rejection of executive-led pandemic management, and the danger is that these limitations could fatally delay responses to future outbreaks, as legislative bodies deliberate while contagion spreads. The legislation represents a dramatic pendulum swing from executive emergency authority toward legislative control, potentially transforming how broad swathes of America respond to the next health crisis.
Contact Tracing and Privacy Concerns
Minnesota's HF394 stands out for its comprehensive restrictions on contact tracing. This Republican-sponsored bill prohibits state agencies and local governments from mandating participation in contact tracing and requires the destruction of communicable disease data within 90 days. It also prevents employers from requiring employees to install digital contact tracing applications.
The potential impact of such legislation is significant. While protecting individual privacy, these restrictions could hamper public health officials' ability to track and contain disease outbreaks. Contact tracing has historically been a vital tool in controlling diseases like tuberculosis and sexually transmitted infections. By limiting this capability, states may face increased challenges in identifying and isolating infectious cases during future outbreaks.
The Implications of State-by-State Approaches
If federal authorities are prevented from mandating nationwide restrictions during future health emergencies, the patchwork of state-level approaches could create significant challenges. We've already seen during COVID-19 how different state responses led to confusion, inconsistent messaging, and people traveling between jurisdictions to avoid restrictions. And isolating the U.S. from international efforts to contain and combat outbreaks, preventing full blown pandemics, also appears foolhardy. Diseases famously are no respecters of national borders and so denying funds to organizations such as the WHO and limiting cooperation by American public health officials puts Americans at even greater risk.
Historically, communities have come together to collectively defeat threats through coordinated action. During World War II, Americans accepted rationing, blackouts, and other restrictions as necessary sacrifices for the common good. The eradication of smallpox globally and polio in most countries resulted from coordinated vaccination campaigns that required high levels of participation.
These successes depended on decisive, fast leadership. Public health emergencies, by their nature, require rapid response before a crisis spirals out of control. When a novel pathogen emerges, waiting for perfect information or lengthy legislative deliberation can cost lives.
Finding Balance in Future Emergencies
While individual liberties are foundational to American society, history shows that temporarily accepting certain restrictions during emergencies can preserve life and ultimately protect our freedoms in the long term. The challenge lies in ensuring that emergency powers are both effective and limited—responding proportionally to threats while including safeguards against indefinite restrictions.
Washington's HB 1531 offers one model: empowering public health officials to take evidence-based actions while explicitly protecting individual choice. Other approaches, like requiring legislative approval for extended emergencies, can provide democratic oversight without paralyzing initial response efforts.
As states prepare for future health emergencies, the legislative landscape reflects differing philosophies about the proper role of government in addressing public health threats. The tension between individual rights and collective action remains unresolved, but the goal should be finding approaches that protect both lives and liberties to the greatest extent possible.
The legislature intends to ensure that the public receives timely, well-researched, evidence-based, and science-driven information to make informed choices so that they can take personal control of their health and the health of their families. In times of crisis, this informed decision-making, coupled with collective action guided by scientific evidence, represents our best hope for navigating future health emergencies successfully.
About BillTrack50 – BillTrack50 offers free tools for citizens to easily research legislators and bills across all 50 states and Congress. BillTrack50 also offers professional tools to help organizations with ongoing legislative and regulatory tracking, as well as easy ways to share information both internally and with the public.