Highlight 14/2025: What opportunities arise for the EU after the US exit from the WHO?
Sepehr Kherad, 27 February 2025
The premier global health governance body, the World Health Organization (WHO), is standing at a crossroads that will decide its fate for at least the coming 4 years. With the US planning to cut 1 billion dollars in spending on this domain, the American withdrawal has already resulted in hiring freezes and potential shuttering of projects in locations urgently requiring medical support.
If we look at the geographic distribution of Official Development Assistance (ODA) for the US, of which a significant portion goes to projects in the health and nutrition sector, those countries in the least income and high conflict groups are the most affected. Without this financial assistance, Somalia, South Sudan, and Afghanistan miss out on approximately 40% of ODA. Despite the severe global risks in this unfolding health governance crisis, there is light at the end of the tunnel if WHO members and observers step up their commitment. The European Union (EU) is especially fit to fill the lacuna left behind by the US, both financially and in terms of expertise. Currently, the EU holds an observer status at the WHO and is the fifth most significant contributor. With a vast body of specialized agencies, the EU provides expert services in all WHO sectors. Nevertheless, the question remains: what should be done to mitigate the harm of a US exit? Regarding funding, most US voluntary contributions go to the tightly earmarked specified category and none to thematic or core. Conversely, the EU invests at the thematic level, though it is equally absent in the core contributions. To provide the WHO with more capacity and autonomy, the EU should increase its thematic budget or preferably consider making core contributions. This means a sharp u-turn with the proposed cuts to funding for health policy and associated NGOs both in the current budget and the following multiannual financial framework. If the EU squanders this opportunity, it will lose the changing health leadership role to a very willing China.
Regarding WHO autonomy and equitability, the EU should be a pandemic treaty champion. Now that the US is stepping back in negotiations, the time is ripe to push forward by granting the WHO more supervisory powers and making the licensing of medicines pertaining to public health emergencies of international concern widely accessible to low (middle) income countries. The EU should, therefore, become a more prominent mainstay in multilateral health diplomacy by filling in the global south development gaps, whether it is on aid projects, vaccination, or technical support. Lastly, the EU should reconsider the cessation of its own valuable projects. The One Health European Joint Program, meant to bring together all types of stakeholders across the European continent in a knowledge platform, has ended. Such transdisciplinary thought leadership is essential for the global governance of Health and, therefore, must be reinstated.
The EU must choose: remain a stagnant partner or graduate to the primary health ally of the WHO and member states across the globe. Opting towards the latter might mean tripling the financial contributions, though it will pay its dividends in terms of heightened diplomatic ties and improved Health for all. A healthy life should, after all, be indiscriminate.
Sepehr Kherad, Highlight 14/2025: What opportunities arise for the EU after the US exit from the WHO?, 27 February 2025, available at www.meig.ch
The views expressed in the MEIG Highlights are personal to the authors and neither reflect the positions of the MEIG Programme nor those of the University of Geneva.