WHO Reports: USAID Cuts Threaten HIV Treatment in Eight Nations

The World Health Organization (WHO) headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland, stood majestic against the crisp winter sky on January 28, 2025.

It seems astonishing, doesn’t it? The power of decisions emanating from high offices and how they ripple across the globe. A profound decision has just sent shockwaves through the fabric of international health—a decision by the Trump administration to pause U.S. foreign aid. This pause, the World Health Organization claims, has “substantially disrupted” the supply of HIV treatments in a group of eight countries. Can you imagine the anxiety, the uncertainty in Haiti, Kenya, Lesotho, South Sudan, Burkina Faso, Mali, Nigeria, and Ukraine, where the medicine that has been a lifeline might soon be out of reach?

Reflecting on this, an image of a pendulum swinging through progress and setbacks comes to mind. Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, WHO’s Director-General, expressed this somberly at a press conference. He noted that “the disruptions to HIV programs could undo 20 years of progress,” a progress built on the backs of hard-working healthcare workers, researchers, and resilient patients. The potential fallout? Over 10 million additional HIV cases and three million deaths that once seemed preventable. It’s a sobering thought.

Skills and determination are admirable, but the machinery of global health can’t turn without oil—the oil, in this case, being funds. The U.S. halt in aid, initiated by President Donald Trump shortly after taking office, hasn’t only hampered the fight against HIV but also presented hurdles in battling polio, malaria, and tuberculosis. The stakes are high; people’s lives hang in the balance. Ventures like the Global Measles and Rubella Laboratory Network, boasting over 700 sites around the world, face the grim possibility of shutting down. We live in times when measles is resurging in the U.S.—a reminder of how perilously close we are to reawakening old threats.

Ghebreyesus made a compelling point about responsibility, stating, “The United States has a responsibility to ensure that if it withdraws direct funding for countries, it’s done in an orderly and humane way that allows them to find alternative sources of funding.” Careful handing over is critical; history is watching, and the pages are yet to be written on this chapter of global collaboration and its vulnerabilities.

The consequences are not limited to HIV programs. Afghanistan is facing the potential closure of 80% of WHO-supported essential health care services due to financial constraints. It’s a tragedy written in advance; 167 health facilities had already shut their doors by March 4 due to funding shortages. Without timely intervention, over 220 additional facilities could face closure by June. Imagine a community, dependent on a clinic, finding its doors shut overnight. It’s not just a clinic that closes—hope flickers out with it, and illness steps in.

Fiscal logistics have further been rattled by the U.S.’s movement to exit WHO. The shockwaves from this decision forced the United Nations’ health agency, which typically relies on the U.S. for about 20% of its annual funding, into a hiatus, with hiring freezes and budget cuts looming large. Financial constriction is palpable, almost as if you could hear the budget belts tightening. Moving forward, WHO plans a significant slashing of its emergency operations funding target from $1.2 billion to $872 million for the 2026-2027 budget period.

Every dollar counts—every stemmed, saved, or redirected dollar reflects in the treatment given or withheld. This statement resounds louder when the agency tasked with holding the health of nations takes drastic steps to curb costs while striving to sustain its mission.

Reporters Mariam Sunny and Christy Santhosh from Bengaluru shed light on these developments, with editing by Alan Barona.

Edited By Ali Musa
Axadle Times international–Monitoring.