WHO Silent on Strategy After US Funding Withdrawal - Dr S K Gupta

At the WHO Global Health Issues Press Conference on March 17, 2025, the World Health Organization (WHO) remained silent on its long-term strategy following the withdrawal of U.S. funding, despite earlier indications that it might pursue crowdsourcing or alternative funding mechanisms.

When asked whether WHO plans to engage heads of state to restart dialogue with the United States, Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus did not provide a direct response, raising concerns over WHO’s roadmap for financial sustainability.

This lack of clarity comes as WHO warns of catastrophic consequences in global health due to the funding shortfall, particularly affecting malaria, HIV, tuberculosis, and essential immunization programs.

U.S. Funding Cuts: The Global Fallout

1. Malaria: A Potential Reversal of 15 Years of Progress

U.S. funding has helped prevent 2.2 billion malaria cases and facilitated the delivery of 12.7 million malaria vaccine doses over the past two decades. If the funding gap is not filled, WHO estimates:

• 15 million additional malaria cases
• 107,000 deaths in 2025 alone

2. HIV/AIDS Programs in Crisis

Eight countries are already experiencing medication shortages, with nearly 50 nations expected to face disruptions in diagnostics, surveillance, and treatment.

Projections indicate:

• 10 million additional HIV cases
• 3 million HIV-related deaths, undoing 15 years of progress

3. Tuberculosis (TB): The Threat to 2 Billion Lives Saved

U.S. financial withdrawal is affecting TB treatment programs in 27 countries across Asia and Africa. Nine countries are already struggling to continue treatment for diagnosed patients, threatening a resurgence of TB.

4. Measles and Rubella: Laboratories at Risk of Closure

700 global laboratories, fully dependent on U.S. funding, are at risk of shutting down, endangering measles and rubella control efforts. Measles cases are rising, with 57 outbreaks recorded in the past year.

WHO’s Strategy: No Clear Answers on Future Financial Plans

Dr Tedros had previously suggested that WHO might explore crowdsourcing and diversified funding models to compensate for the U.S. financial withdrawal. However, during today’s press conference, WHO avoided direct answers on:

• Whether it plans to initiate diplomatic engagement with the U.S.\
• Whether it has alternative funding mechanisms in place
• Whether other high-income countries will step in to bridge the financial gap

Dr Tedros did emphasize WHO’s commitment to budget restructuring, reprioritization, and cost-cutting measures, but these adjustments alone are unlikely to sustain large-scale health programs without major donor contributions.

A Global Call to Action: The Need for Collective Responsibility

Dr Tedros urged other nations to increase their health spending, stressing that the world must not be solely dependent on a single donor nation. He also stated that even if the U.S. does not resume funding, WHO will push for stronger financial commitments from other countries.

However, without a structured transition plan, the abrupt withdrawal of U.S. financial support could devastate millions worldwide, particularly in low-income nations reliant on these funds.

Conclusion: WHO at a Crossroads

WHO now faces one of its biggest funding challenges in history. While its scientific and public health credibility remains strong, the organization’s financial model needs urgent reform to avoid dependency on political decisions by donor nations.

Without concrete financial solutions, global health programs—including those tackling malaria, HIV, TB, and immunization—are at serious risk.

The silence on WHO’s engagement with world leaders or alternative funding mechanisms leaves the future of millions of vulnerable people uncertain. The question remains: Will WHO take decisive action, or will global health be dictated by geopolitical funding decisions?