The World Health Organization (WHO) made an urgent appeal on Thursday, January 16, to raise $1.5 billion to address the numerous health emergencies affecting millions of people in various parts of the world. This request comes at a time of great uncertainty, particularly with the imminent inauguration of Donald Trump as President of the United States, set for January 20. Historically, the U.S. has been the largest source of funding for the WHO. The implications of this power transition put the continuity of U.S. financial support to the agency at risk, raising serious concerns about the future of the WHO and its ability to fund its global health emergency response network.
The WHO’s appeal is part of its annual campaign to secure essential resources to deal with health crises that have intensified in various parts of the world, from war zones to areas ravaged by epidemic outbreaks. The agency is seeking a contribution of $1.5 billion to support over 300 million people living in 42 emergency regions, including locations such as Gaza, Afghanistan, parts of Sub-Saharan Africa, and areas in Latin America, all facing critical medical and humanitarian needs. The situation in these regions is dire, with vulnerable populations facing everything from infectious disease outbreaks to collapsed health infrastructure, worsened by prolonged conflicts and natural disasters.
“Without adequate and sustainable funding, the task of deciding who will receive care and who will not becomes an impossible mission,” said WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, highlighting the growing disparity between global health needs and the resources available to address them. The appeal reflects an urgent scenario, in which the WHO must ensure stable and sufficient financing to handle the multiple crises it faces around the world. The lack of resources could result in severe failures in health systems in countries in extreme situations, leaving millions without life-saving assistance.
The United States has always been one of the WHO’s largest donors, contributing a significant portion of the organization’s funding. For the 2024-2025 period, the U.S. contributed around 34% of the WHO’s emergency health budget, in addition to funding approximately 20% of the agency’s total budget, which is estimated to be $6.8 billion for the next cycle. Historically, the U.S. has funded up to 50% of the WHO’s emergency budget, placing the nation in a strategic and vital position to ensure the execution of global health programs. This financial dependence puts the WHO in a vulnerable position, especially with the political uncertainty generated by the Trump administration.
During Trump’s first term, the United States decided to withdraw from the WHO, a move that destabilized the agency’s financial stability. The then-president’s criticism of the WHO’s handling of the COVID-19 pandemic and its alleged closeness to China were key factors in his decision to cut funding and withdraw the U.S. from the organization. While the Biden administration restored support for the WHO during its term, Trump’s potential return to the White House raises concerns that he may adopt a stance similar to that of his first term, once again halting funding and possibly withdrawing the U.S. from the organization, which would be a devastating blow to the WHO’s operations.
Sources close to Trump’s transition team have indicated that he could take similar actions in his second term, aiming to reduce the international influence of the WHO, particularly at a time when the U.S. has distanced itself from many multilateral alliances. When asked by Reuters late last month about the possibility of a new U.S. withdrawal from the WHO, a source familiar with internal negotiations said, “The same WHO we left during the first administration? It seems like we wouldn’t care much about what they have to say.” This type of stance reflects a renewed disregard for the organization, focusing on a more isolationist policy that tends to minimize the U.S.’s role in global health issues.
This political uncertainty has been further reinforced by internal WHO documents released this week before the agency’s executive board meeting scheduled for early February. These documents warned of imminent risks for the WHO if it loses key donors like the U.S., which represent a substantial portion of the organization’s funding. Only five countries, with the U.S. leading, provide the majority of voluntary funds for the WHO, with these donors responsible for up to two-thirds of the funding for some essential programs. This places the organization in a critical position, as the loss of any of these donors could severely undermine the WHO’s ability to respond to global health emergencies, affecting millions of people at risk.
The WHO is funded by a combination of mandatory contributions from its member states, along with a round of investments and voluntary contributions from countries and philanthropic organizations. However, these voluntary contributions have become increasingly crucial, as mandatory fees are insufficient to cover the magnitude of global health needs. Moreover, the WHO has depended on a very small number of large donors, meaning any change in U.S. funding policy could create a domino effect, impacting the organization’s ability to finance its operations across various fronts.
In light of this financial uncertainty, the WHO is being forced to seek alternative solutions to ensure its operations continue. However, without a stable funding base, the agency may face serious difficulties in continuing to provide emergency assistance, respond to disease outbreaks, and improve health systems in areas affected by conflict, extreme poverty, and natural disasters. The $1.5 billion appeal is an attempt to cover part of the funding gap, but without continued support from its major donors, the WHO may find itself unable to fulfill its mission of saving lives and improving health conditions in underserved regions.
This critical moment for the WHO reflects a complex reality where global health is increasingly intertwined with political and financial issues. The organization’s future will depend on the international community’s response, especially from the United States, and the willingness of other countries and organizations to fill the gap left by a potential funding cut. The response to this appeal will be crucial in determining the WHO’s effectiveness in addressing global health challenges in the coming decades.
