Significant knowledge gaps exist for resilience, preparedness, and response to public health emergencies (PHEs) in the United States. The 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic and natural disasters (as experienced in Texas, Florida, Puerto Rico, and the Carolinas during the hurricane seasons of 2017-2018) highlight missed opportunities for clinical investigation to identify and address strategic vulnerabilities, gaps, and solutions. In response, US government leaders initiated a call to action to include research as part of PHE activities.1 Progress has been made since then, thanks to new funding that created organizations and infrastructure to lead change for knowledge acquisition and management.1-3 This progress is essential to answering key clinical questions in response to PHEs.2 Similar challenges worldwide are driving creation of unique solutions, such as the Platform for European Preparedness Against (Re)emerging Epidemics, the Australian Partnership for Preparedness Research on Infectious Disease Emergencies, the Canadian Critical Care Trials Group, the Mexican Emerging Infectious Disease Clinical Research Network (La Red), and the International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infection Consortium. In the United States, clinical and population research gaps exist in part because of the challenges of coordination and funding.4 Closer, more inclusive collaboration remains an essential strategic imperative, given that resilience, preparedness, and response require coordination across a broad range of stakeholders.4 The US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), for example, has no single or overarching source of funding for resilience and preparedness: each HHS agency has a distinct budget that promotes funding in its lane. In addition, investigators may be unaware that funding for a similar or complementary aim is provided to colleagues in the same city by a different agency. The current process also is inefficient, requiring the building and disassembling of infrastructure with each funding cycle to answer questions and test hypotheses iteratively. Opportunities for synergy and sustained inquiry are missed. At present, a comprehensive PHE response vision can only result from piecing together separate funding sources and rapidly assembling collaborative partnerships.