Nina Schwalbe In Run For Congress Finds These Barriers To Scientists

Schwalbe Was First Inspired By The Trump Administration’s Public Health Cuts And Congressional Inaction

Schwalbe explained her motivation to run for Congress began when “[U.S. President Donald] Trump withdrew the U.S. from the World Health Organization and fired over 200,000 of our peers from CDC, NIH, FDA and USAID, who all do basic functions that are required to keep people safe and healthy,” she said. “And then when I tried to call our Congress people, they just weren’t paying attention.” In Forbes, I have continued to report on such cuts and the U.S. withdrawal from the WHO, as well as funding threats to universities and policy questions involving Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

With extensive experience in public health leadership, Schwalbe has held roles such as director of policy at the Global Alliance for TB Drug Development, deputy executive secretary and managing director for policy and performance at GAVI, and UNICEF’s principal advisor and acting chief of health. Faith McLellan has described Schwalbe as a “global health expert and advocate” involved in diverse global health issues, including HIV and tuberculosis prevention, and pandemic treaty negotiations, in a recent article in The Lancet. Schwalbe is well aware of the long-term impact of laying off science and health professionals from U.S. government agencies on American health.

Challenges In Identifying An Infectious Outbreak’s Cause Further Drove Schwalbe To Run For Congress

Schwalbe was further compelled to run for Congress following an unexplained infectious disease outbreak in the Democratic Republic of Congo in February-March 2025. She noted difficulties in pinpointing the virus responsible for the outbreak, a concerning issue given the recent COVID-19 pandemic.

“So I tried to call our Congress people, and they just weren’t listening, they didn’t care,” Schwalbe recalled. “Finally, I got [U.S. Senator Kirsten] Gillibrand’s office because she’s on the Senate foreign relations committee and has a particular interest in DRC. Then, they called the CDC, then engaged with the WHO, but that took way too many calls.” Schwalbe added, “With a lot of experiences added up like that, I realized that they had lost the plot. Nobody was following this.”

This realization pushed her to consider running for Congress in spring 2025, initially aiming to challenge Nadler on public health issues. When Nadler announced his retirement, Schwalbe’s plans shifted. Encouraged by others, she decided to run, feeling that her voice was needed.

In September 2025, Schwalbe officially decided to pursue a seat in Congress. She joined a Democratic race led by four men with more conventional political backgrounds. New York Assemblymembers Micah Lasher and Alex Bores, former Republican George Conway, and Jack Schlossberg, the grandson of President John F. Kennedy, are among her competitors.

Calls For More Scientists In Congress Have Reached Schwalbe

It’s evident that scientists make up a small fraction of the 119th U.S. Congress. Of the 535 voting members, there are only nine engineers, a physicist, a chemist, a geologist, and 30 physicians. Congress frequently makes science-related decisions, often without substantial scientific expertise, akin to fielding a non-athlete team for the FIFA World Cup.

Schwalbe highlighted that scientists excel at addressing complex issues and that their inquiry methods are beneficial across fields. She expressed concern that politicians might not understand the necessary public health legislation or how to ensure its proper implementation.

The Trump administration’s cuts to science and health have affected multiple sectors. “Almost everybody I speak to is concerned that science has been cut,” Schwalbe noted. People share stories of job losses, halted studies, and interrupted clinical trials. Schwalbe frequently hears comments like, “Oh, you’re the scientist. We need a scientist. We need a scientist in Congress.”

Schwalbe Discovered The Importance Of Money And Connections In Congressional Campaigns

While scientists possess problem-solving skills and knowledge, they often lack financial resources. “When I asked people how much money would I need to raise, a lot of people said like $3 million,” Schwalbe recalled. “I was like, well, that’s not gonna happen.” She pointed out that most people underestimate how financially driven politics and campaigning are.

Connections also play a critical role. Schwalbe remarked, “It’s really about whom you know, as all the endorsements come from people. You had to have had long relationships with people. There’s no sort of fair playing field here.”

Nancy Goroff, PhD, who previously ran for New York’s 1st congressional district, echoed Schwalbe’s findings: “In order to get elected, one needs to raise millions of dollars. Candidates with large networks of wealthy friends are at a huge advantage, and most scientists do not have that kind of network.”

Scientists Like Schwalbe Face More Obstacles To Enter Congress

Apart from financial challenges, Schwalbe identified another issue: the political machine. “The Democratic machine is very much about protecting current interests,” she stated. “There’s a lot of quid pro quo and deal-making. And public health is so invisible. People really don’t understand what it is or how it works.”

Goroff identified additional stereotypes scientists face when running for office. “Scientists running for office also have to contend with the stereotypes that voters and donors have about what a scientist is,” she explained. “There are positive associations and negative with being a scientist, and since there are so few in politics, any science candidate has to carry all those stereotypes, whether or not they fit.” These stereotypes can be burdensome, despite the success of numerous world leaders with scientific backgrounds, such as Angela Merkel, Claudia Sheinbaum, Xi Jinping, and even some of the U.S.’s Founding Fathers like Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson.

This historical precedent raises the question: Why wouldn’t people recognize scientists as effective leaders today?