Fact check: Trump’s claims on role of U.S. military in COVID-19 vaccine plan

7 min readNov 28, 2020

From the get-go, U.S. President Donald Trump has miscast or exaggerated the military’s role in his administration’s crash program to accelerate the development, production and eventual distribution of COVID-19 vaccines.

The military theme originated in the May 15 announcement of the creation of Operation Warp Speed. Speaking from the Rose Garden, Trump likened the effort to the Manhattan Project, the military’s successful World War II program to engineer and build in secret the world’s first atomic bombs.

“That means the full power and strength of the military,” Trump said, referring to the project as a partnership that would combine the full resources of the Pentagon and the Health and Human Services Department. He added: “We have the mightiest military in the long history of humankind.”

Indeed, the military has contributed mightily to the project. It has provided a range of assistance in the form of planning, program management, logistics expertise and other efforts. The accelerated work on COVID-19 vaccines also has benefitted from past investments by the Pentagon’s Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency in science and technologies related to infectious diseases.

Army Gen. Gustave Perna was plucked from his job as commander of Army Materiel Command to be the chief operating officer of Operation Warp Speed, and he, too, initially gave the effort a military spin.

“This mission is about defeating the enemy,” Perna said at the Rose Garden announcement with Trump. “We will defeat the enemy.”

But it has been Trump, not Perna, who has miscast the military’s role. Trump said in his initial announcement the military would “deploy every plane, truck and soldier required” to distribute a vaccine when ready. Within months he was stating even more explicitly — and still incorrectly — that the military would do delivery.

“Our military is doing the distribution — it’s called logistics,” he said in a video posted to Twitter on Oct. 7.

Two weeks later, at his debate with Democrat Joe Biden, now the president-elect, Trump said, “We have Operation Warp Speed, which is the military is going to distribute the vaccine.”

In fact, the military will not distribute the vaccine, although state governors have the power to use members of their National Guard for any number of tasks supporting public safety, including to help with vaccine logistics if deemed necessary.

“There will not be this vision that some people have that there will be Army trucks driving through the streets delivering vaccine,” Perna said Oct. 27.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, not the military, is in charge of the distribution effort, which is based on plans drawn up by each state and other jurisdictions. The distribution will be executed by private companies including McKesson Corp., a health care company that has extensive experience in the distribution of flu vaccines. McKesson also will distribute supplies needed to administer the shots.

Nor will the military produce, store or administer the vaccines. The Pentagon has been saying for months that it would only get involved in vaccine distribution in the event that commercial distributors were unable to reach a remote area of the country.

“The federal military will not be involved in moving any doses or injecting any vaccines,” Paul Mango, the deputy chief of staff for policy at Health and Human Services, said Oct. 24.

The Pentagon has pointedly disputed suggestions that it intends to be delivering vaccines, saying instead that any involvement would be by exception, such as a case in which normal commercial delivery services could not reach a delivery point. Thus far, no such exception has been identified, the Pentagon said this past week.

In addition to Perna, the senior leadership of Operation Warp Speed includes a retired Army colonel, Matthew Hepburn, who serves as the lead official on vaccine development. He is a medical doctor, a biomedical engineer and a former director of medical preparedness on the White House national security staff.

The prominence of military officials in Operation Warp Speed has drawn scrutiny on Capitol Hill, where some have questioned whether an outsize military leadership role would marginalize public health agencies. In October, Democratic Sens. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Mazie Hirono of Hawaii called for a public Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on the military’s participation in the effort, but no such hearing has been held.

Nathan Cogswell of WRI and Michelle du Toit of CDKN round up an event from the Paris Committee on Capacity Building in October 2020, which took stock of capacity building efforts for climate action, in a pandemic era.

In October 2020, the Paris Committee on Capacity Building (PCCB) Network hosted a webinar organised by the Climate & Development Knowledge Network (CDKN), German international development agency (GIZ), and the World Resources Institute (WRI) to explore the different ways in which capacity-building work is adapting in light of the unusual circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The PCCB’s mission is to build momentum for climate action and especially for the capacity building needed to make it happen. The PCCB has more than 200 member organisations, and provides platforms where they and others can share knowledge and experiences.

How has the approach to capacity building activities implemented prior to the COVID-19 pandemic impacted the continued implementation of these and related activities during and (likely) post the pandemic?

Especially during the COVID-19 context, what innovative tools and methods are you using to engage stakeholders and support capacity-building efforts?

What can we learn from the COVID-19 disruption in terms of delivering better capacity development?

The pandemic has forced a change in thinking about social outreach and engagement, including capacity-building for climate action.

One of the obvious consequences is the transition from in-person activities to online activities. Relationship building is central to successful capacity-building efforts, and the shift to online activities may pose particular challenges if relationships are not well established. Discussion participants noted success in blending the offline and the online (i.e., “online consultations with offline preparatory work”) and that “having met partners before the pandemic allows for more effective virtual engagement.”

But the shift to digital approaches is not always inclusive. Time zones present challenges. Stable and reliable Internet connections are not always available. These digital challenges may disrupt some modus operandi but also reinforce the value of investing in existing networks and supporting local engagement.

One participant noted their efforts to capitalise on “existing networks via WhatsApp groups, which reach deep into communities.” And even analog tools can still be extremely effective, as one partner is using a green courier service to deliver “hard-copy” newsletters.

For some, the shift to online tools brought on by the pandemic’s health threats represents efforts to utilise and try different means and methods for delivering capacity-building activities. In particular, the discussion highlighted the novel experiences with different digital tools — including meeting platforms (i.e., Zoom, Microsoft Teams, WebEx), online collaborative tools (i.e., sli.do, Mentimeter, Padlet), and social media (i.e., livestreaming on Facebook or Instagram).

For others, the travel restrictions imposed by COVD-19 together with challenges in accessing the internet resulted in a shift to using expertise within the country for technical assistance interventions. This was in contrast to prior to the pandemic where there had been substantial reliance on expertise outside of the country.

But even before the pandemic, there were reasons to rethink the traditional mode of delivery of capacity building and to try new and different methods. These included a call to engage in capacity building activities from the bottom up, through supporting existing community capacity building measures and from the top down; building the capacity of parliamentarians to create enabling conditions for community members to be able to implement adaptive measures. This approach will increase local ownership and strengthen resilience.

Parliamentarians have not received enough attention in capacity building efforts to date — said Yamide Dagnet of World Resources Institute (WRI) and the Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) Partnership. Professor Mizan Khan of Pakistan agreed, saying: “Involving parliamentarians is of utmost importance — most are not very concerned with climate change.”

Since the outbreak of the pandemic, the NDC Partnership has also innovated by seconding economic advisors to national governments to assist with ‘greening’ plans for economic recovery from COVID-19, Ms. Dagnet said.

Delivering better in the future

In terms of learning from the pandemic in order to inform more effective delivery of capacity-building activities, the discussion reiterated the importance of building trust.

Virtual efforts are only so good at building trust and, in many cases, in-person interactions are still vital. Though, there is still value in virtual efforts, which may allow for efficiency gains as time spent in travel can be redirected to project outcomes and which have anecdotally allowed for greater participation from women. Virtual efforts must also avoid the “talk shop” trap and need to be well organised — delivering concrete outputs and outcomes.

The complexity of the climate change problem and the pandemic have forced many to emphasise the value of addressing the interlinked challenges together. One discussion participant noted greater attention to the “interdisciplinary, holistic and multi-dimensional” elements of climate change and a renewed attention to the “interconnections and interplay between science and policy.”

Fact check: Trump’s claims on role of U.S. military in COVID-19 vaccine plan

Written by Prime Time

No responses yet