WHO needs a financial model less vulnerable to political volatility

The US withdrawal from the WHO has left the global health agency with a serious fund crunch. Though other nations have pledged more in 2026-2027, the WHO apprehends that it will fall short of its needed budget by 15 per cent. The agency’s appeal for funds on its website to deal with emergencies speaks of the challenges it faces after the withdrawal of its largest benefactor. On the face of it, there is nothing unusual in the WHO’s call for contingency money. The agency appealed for emergency funds in the past two years as well. What’s troubling, however, is that the appeal issued earlier this month speaks of a “reset” in the WHO’s priorities, necessitated by “funding constraints”. It’s apparent that, in the coming weeks and months, the agency will be “scaling back” on “lower impact services” and focusing instead on “life-saving services”. The carefully worded statement notes that these “difficult decisions” were forced upon the WHO by its “limited resources”.

The first major effect of Washington’s exit was the whittling down of the WHO’s budget for 2026-27 by $4 billion. This has precipitated moves to streamline the agency. In May, the agency will brief the World Health Assembly on the restructuring efforts carried out over the past year, including merging departments and divisions and halving the number of directors. An overhaul planned for June could bring down the agency’s workforce by more than 7,000. As the global outfit’s workforce shrinks, countries that have relied on the WHO’s technical expertise in coping with crises, ranging from infectious diseases to maternal mortality, could face challenges. The shortfall could also affect the health responses in conflict zones such as Gaza and Sudan. The fund and personnel crunch could affect immunisation drives and responses to outbreaks in areas prone to infectious diseases.

The flux in the organisation should lead to public conversations on how to make global health governance more resilient. A new paradigm for a public goods approach to health has been long overdue. Health governance needs a financial model that’s not so vulnerable to political unpredictabilities.