Skip to main content

Edge's News: U.S. funding to WHO fell by 25% during pandemic

U.S. financial contributions to the World Health Organization (WHO) have fallen by 25% during the coronavirus pandemic, provisional data show, with Washington's future support to the United Nations agency under review.

The large drop in funding versus the previous two-year period arose from cuts decided by former U.S. President Donald Trump that reveal for the first time the scale of the Trump administration's retreat from the U.N. body.


U.S. funds are set to go up again in the WHO's next two-year budget following new pledges in December including $280 million by President Joe Biden's administration. However, the Biden administration has also raised doubts about Washington's future support to the global organisation. read more


The U.N. agency did with over $200 million less from the United States in 2020 and 2021, according to provisional WHO data contained in a budget document reviewed by Reuters that has not yet been made public, though it managed to raise more funds from other donors which enabled an increase of its total budget.


Washington paid $672 million to the WHO for its latest two-year budget, down from $893 million in 2018-19, the provisional data showed.

As a result, the United States is no longer the WHO's top donor, with Germany having replaced it gradually through transfers of more than a billion dollars over the last two years.


The U.S. State Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment. A WHO spokesperson did not immediately provide an official comment.


The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is the third largest donor to the WHO, with $584 million in 2020-21, largely spent on a global programme to eradicate polio. The foundation did not immediately reply for a request for comment.


Over the past two years, U.S. funds went down mostly in 2020 - Trump's last full year in the White House - amid a sharp fall in so-called voluntary contributions.


Funding doubled in 2021 when Biden took over, but the increase was not enough to fully restore the U.S. financing level compared to previous periods.


Trump cut funding and moved to withdraw the United States from the WHO, accusing it of being too close to China and having mismanaged the first phase of the pandemic - accusations that the WHO has denied.


The Biden administration brought Washington back into the WHO and vowed to restore funding but has also voiced doubts about the WHO's ability to tackle new challenges, including from China.


Part of the U.S. financial contributions were delayed by the WHO to next year. But even factoring this in, the fall in U.S. funds was still about 20%, WHO data show.


About one-third of U.S. funds were mandatory membership fees, which remained stable compared to past years at around $230 million per biennium.


This is considered by the WHO the best funding because it allows higher flexibility in spending and permits the agency to channel the money to where it is most needed.

But the majority of funding went to areas selected by the U.S. government.


This is part of a wider trend, with the WHO having received in total just less than 20% of its funding in recent years from these mandatory contributions, without strings attached.

The WHO document showed that one of the areas underfunded as of Dec. 21 was country preparation for health emergencies, such as the current pandemic, which is only 73% funded.


WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus reiterated on Tuesday that the current funding structure was restrictive.


"The problem is still whatever we have done is mainly an earmarked budget, so it's not really flexible enough," he told the WHO's Executive Board during a public debate, saying that the current financing model was unsustainable.


The United States is opposing a plan to raise mandatory fees, or assessed contributions, to 50% of the WHO's budget in coming years.


"The U.S. seeks to better understand the current funding mechanisms, efficiencies and decision-making before considering an increase in assessed contributions," U.S. health official Mara Burr told the WHO board on Tuesday, noting Washington supported efforts to address gaps in financing for preparedness.


By far the largest part of the WHO's funding comes from voluntary contributions from states or private donors who decide the sectors or even the projects where they should be used.


This is one factor that has led the Geneva-based agency to delay the use of some of the funds since they could not all immediately be devoted to fighting the pandemic.



Source: Reuters






Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The FCT Minister–Soldier Standoff: A Test of Civil Authority and the Rule of Law

On November 11, 2025, Nigerians watched in disbelief as a video surfaced showing a tense confrontation between the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, Nyesom Wike, and a group of armed soldiers who blocked his convoy from accessing a disputed piece of land in Gaduwa, Abuja. The incident, brief but dramatic, was more than a moment of political theatre. It struck at the heart of a much bigger issue — the place of the military in a democracy, and the sanctity of civilian authority under the Nigerian Constitution. The Legal Position: Who Was Right? The Minister’s Authority Under Section 302 of the 1999 Constitution and the FCT Act , the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory exercises the executive powers of the President within Abuja. That means the Minister is not just a political appointee — he represents federal executive authority . His duties include overseeing land allocation, urban planning, and the enforcement of development control through the Federal Capital T...

Nigeria: On the Right of Self-Defence and Protection of National Sovereignty

The Federal Republic of Nigeria reaffirms its unwavering commitment to the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, in particular the maintenance of international peace and security, the respect for the sovereignty and political independence of all States, and the peaceful settlement of disputes. Nigeria is a sovereign and independent nation. Our Constitution vests sovereignty in the people of Nigeria and mandates the Government to protect the territorial integrity and independence of our country. This sovereignty—recognised under international law and reaffirmed by our membership in the United Nations, the African Union, and the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS)—is inviolable. The Government of Nigeria has observed with grave concern recent statements and actions that amount to a threat of aggression and possible violation of our territorial integrity. We remind all States that any such threat or use of force contravenes Article 2(4) of the Ch...

Kebbi’s 3 a.m. Withdrawal Shows Why President Tinubu’s Security Reforms Can’t Wait

When Governor Nasir Idris of Kebbi State revealed that security personnel deployed to vulnerable communities were withdrawn at 3:00 a.m.—just 45 minutes before an attack—Nigerians reacted with shock, anger, and a single question that refuses to disappear: Who gave the withdrawal order? It is a fair question. It is also one that may take time, investigation, and institutional honesty to answer. But the Kebbi incident exposes a deeper truth about security management in Nigeria: our command structure is too fragmented for a country battling multi-layered threats. And this, more than anything, validates President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s push for a centralised, technology-driven, and accountable security coordination model. Nigeria’s security agencies—military, police, DSS, civil defence, intelligence units—operate in parallel lanes with overlapping mandates. State governors, despite bearing the title “Chief Security Officer,” have no legal authority over federal forces. This incoheren...