The ‘Nonpartisan’ Power Grab: How a Blue-State Alliance Aims to Capture Public Health Authority

On October 15, 2025, the governors of California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington, and Guam announced a “nonpartisan” Governors Public Health Alliance (GPHA) to “defend science,” “protect public health,” and coordinate policies across state lines.

On the surface, it sounds like a harmless collaboration on outbreak monitoring or pandemic preparedness. In reality, the GPHA is a partisan power grab—designed to bypass a federal government taking a less coercive approach, protect entrenched pharmaceutical interests, and preserve the heavy-handed policies that eroded public trust during COVID.

The alliance’s own language reveals its ambitions. It plans to “share data, develop public-health guidance, coordinate pandemic-preparedness policies, and purchase vaccines and other products.” Those are traditionally federal functions. By taking them on at the state level — and coordinating them across a bloc of ideologically aligned governments — the GPHA signals its intent to build a parallel public-health apparatus that can operate independently of, or even in defiance of, federal policy.

This sudden enthusiasm for “states’ rights” is highly selective. These governors were perfectly content to follow Washington’s dictates when the federal government imposed sweeping mandates and restrictions. Only now — with a new administration reexamining those policies — do they invoke state authority, positioning themselves as a political counterweight rather than neutral collaborators.

Not “Nonpartisan” by Any Honest Definition

The GPHA calls itself “nonpartisan,” but all fifteen governors are Democrats. Not one Republican governor has joined—unsurprising, since a coalition formed to counter a Republican administration is, by definition, partisan. It is organized around opposition, not neutral science.

Many alliance states are already dominated by one-party rule. In California, Democrats have held a supermajority in both legislative chambers for over a decade, controlling roughly three-quarters of the seats even though Republicans make up about 35–40% of the electorate. That imbalance may soon grow worse: Proposition 50, on the ballot this fall, would suspend California’s independent redistricting commission and return map-drawing to the legislature.

Massachusetts shows a similar picture: Republicans regularly win about 35% of the statewide vote, yet hold no congressional seats.

Defenders of the GPHA might argue this is simply how representative democracy works. But that argument falters when representation itself is manipulated. In states where gerrymandering and one-party dominance entrench political power, citizens are not merely outvoted—they’re excluded from policymaking altogether. 

When states structured this way enter a multistate alliance and label it “nonpartisan,” the claim is worse than misleading. It disguises one-party rule as objective scientific consensus—and shields those governments from accountability. Policies that might have provoked local backlash can be framed as “regional consensus.” We saw this during COVID, when Bay Area counties synchronized mandates so no single jurisdiction bore political cost.

The GPHA now scales that tactic, enabling sweeping decisions to be presented as the inevitable product of “The Science,” rather than partisan choice.

“Defending Science” — or Defending Power?

Perhaps the most revealing part of the GPHA’s mission is its pledge to “defend science.” During COVID, that same idea was packaged in another empty slogan—“follow the science”—a phrase repeated endlessly by governors like Gavin Newsom, even as his own policies ignored evolving evidence and silenced debate. 

What “science” did those policies represent? Not the method of inquiry that tests hypotheses and changes course when evidence shifts. Instead, “science” became a fixed orthodoxy used to justify sweeping restrictions and censor dissent. And now, as the new federal administration reopens vaccine-policy debates, demands stronger evidence standards, and reasserts informed consent principles, the GPHA seeks to enshrine that orthodoxy in state law.

The irony is that this new alliance arises just as a broad movement is emerging to rebuild public trust in public health — one that calls for eliminating toxic additives like mercury from vaccines, restoring voluntary choice for COVID shots, and reevaluating whether newborns need vaccines meant for adults at high risk, such as sex workers or injection drug users. Rather than engage with these reforms in good faith, the GPHA appears designed to resist them, preserving the very policies that fueled public skepticism in the first place.

The shift in vaccine policymaking is a case in point. Instead of relying on the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) — as most states have done for decades — many GPHA states now lean on guidance from the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), a trade association funded by pharmaceutical companies and pediatricians who profit from vaccine programs. It recently called for eliminating all non-medical vaccine exemptions nationwide.

This is not science. One-size-fits-all mandates imposed without regard for individual risk, medical history, or conscience are not evidence-based medicine—they are industry’s dream of a captive market. And they reveal what the GPHA truly means when it pledges to “defend science:” not fostering inquiry or debate, but shielding a policy agenda from challenge.

The hypocrisy is hard to ignore. When the Biden-era CDC recommended COVID shots for babies as young as six months without randomized clinical trials, none of these governors questioned the science. They were silent—or supportive—because the policy came from their own party. They were equally silent when the federal Head Start program required two-year-olds to wear masks well into 2022. There was no outcry, no multistate resistance, no talk of “nonpartisan science.” Only now—when a Republican administration may pursue less coercive policies—do they claim the mantle of scientific guardianship.

Locking In COVID-Era Control Mechanisms

If this were just about sharing data or preparing for emergencies, there would be little controversy. But the GPHA states already have a clear record: a public-health approach that prioritizes coercion over consent.

During COVID, many of these states imposed some of the nation’s longest and most sweeping restrictions, extended emergency powers for years, and kept schools closed long after the evidence of harm was clear. They maintained mask mandates without credible evidence of benefit and pioneered vaccine passports even after it was obvious the vaccines did not stop transmission. California went further, as the only state to announce plans to mandate the COVID vaccine for all K–12 students—a policy no red state contemplated.

An alliance among states with that track record only magnifies the risk of future coercion. While the GPHA is not a legally binding compact, its voluntary nature makes it no less consequential—enabling governors to coordinate sweeping policies, executive orders, and procurement decisions without legislative oversight or public consent. And by acting in concert, these states can present coercive policies as “consensus science” and shield them from scrutiny or dissent.

Substituting shared ideology for genuine scientific inquiry is not a hypothetical concern—it is how Democratic-led COVID policy often worked in practice. In one widely circulated video, former Biden-era CDC director Mandy Cohen, who led North Carolina’s COVID response, described casually coordinating decisions with her Massachusetts counterpart: “Are you going to let them have professional football?” “Nope.” “Okay, neither are we.” What Cohen offered as a lighthearted anecdote was deeply revealing: policies that closed businesses and reshaped daily life for millions were often made without transparent risk assessment or rigorous debate—through informal conversations among like-minded officials, with no dissenting voice present. That is precisely the partisan groupthink the GPHA threatens to formalize.

Power, Not Science

Public health policies that affect millions must rest on sound science and democratic legitimacy—grounded in representation, transparency, and respect for informed consent. During COVID, sweeping mandates and prolonged emergency powers eroded not only civil liberties but also public trust—a wound that will take years to heal. The new federal HHS administration under Secretary Kennedy is attempting to repair that damage by reexamining coercive policies, strengthening evidence standards, and questioning the vaccine orthodoxy that shut down debate.

The GPHA points in the opposite direction. Rather than reflect on the failures of the past five years, it appears poised to double down by creating a separate public-health regime that entrenches them. That refusal to reassess mistakes does more than harden partisan divides—it deepens the crisis of trust on which public health depends.