WHO Considers $400 Million Budget Cut After US Withdrawal

WHO member states discuss a $400 Million budget cut after Trump's decision to withdraw US funding from the global health body. [Image via Reuters]

World Health Organisation (WHO) member states will discuss cutting part of its budget by $400 million in light of President Donald Trump’s move to withdraw the US, its biggest government funder, from the WHO, a document released on Monday showed.

Opening the UN agency’s annual executive board meeting, WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus defended the agency’s work and recent reforms and reiterated a call for Washington to reconsider its exit and enter into dialogue on further change.

“We would welcome suggestions from the United States, and all member states, for how we can serve you and the people of the world better,” he said.

Also See: Trump’s Return: A New Era or More of the Same?

The budget cut will be addressed at the February 3-11 Geneva meeting, during which member state representatives will discuss the agency’s funding and work for the 2026-27 period.

The executive board proposes cutting the base programmes section of the budget from a proposed $5.3 billion to $4.9bn, according to a document released on Monday.

That is part of the wider $7.5bn budget for 2026-27 that was originally proposed, including money for polio eradication and tackling emergencies.

“With the departure of the biggest financial contributor, the budget could not be ‘business as usual’,” the document reads.

The US is the WHO’s biggest government donor, contributing around 18 per cent of its overall funding. The WHO has already separately taken some cost-cutting steps after the US move.

However, some board representatives also wanted to send a message that the WHO would preserve its strategic direction despite the challenges, the document adds.

The $4.9bn is roughly the same as the base programme budget for the previous period, 2024-2025.

Trump moved to exit the WHO on his first day in office two weeks ago. The process will take one year under US law.

On Monday, Tedros also specifically addressed some of Trump’s criticisms, including around the handling of the Covid-19 pandemic and the WHO’s independence.

He said the agency acted fast on the Covid outbreak, adding that the WHO is happy to say no to member states where requests go against its mission or science.

This news is sourced from Dawn and is intended for informational purposes only.

News Desk

Your trusted source for insightful journalism. Stay informed with our compelling coverage of global affairs, business, technology, and more.

Recent

From The Periphery to the Center: What People at Our Margins Endure

The South Asia Times (SAT) hosted a national webinar titled “From the Periphery to the Center: What People at Our Margins Endure,” spotlighting how Pakistan’s border regions, Balochistan, Gilgit-Baltistan, Azad Jammu & Kashmir, and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, face deep-rooted governance challenges, economic neglect, and communication voids. Experts called for shifting from a security-centric to an inclusion-driven policy model to rebuild trust, empower youth, and turn Pakistan’s peripheries into engines of national resilience.

Read More »

The Indian Muslim: Living Between Faith and Fear

In September 2025, a simple expression of faith became a crime. When a devotional social media trend, the ‘I Love Muhammad’ campaign, went viral, it was deliberately framed as a provocation by authorities. The state’s response was swift and brutal: mass arrests and punitive demolitions that turned a peaceful act of devotion into a national flashpoint, revealing a clear intent to police and punish Muslim identity itself.

Read More »
Pakistan’s Stability: A Silent Pillar of US Strategic Interests

Pakistan’s Stability: A Silent Pillar of US Strategic Interests

Long seen through a security lens, Pakistan is now redefining its role in US strategy, as a supplier of critical minerals, a connectivity hub between Central and South Asia, and a stabilizing force in a volatile region. Amid global competition with China and shifting energy dynamics, Washington increasingly views Pakistan’s stability not as a choice but as a strategic necessity anchoring its economic and geopolitical interests across Asia.

Read More »
The Nobel Peace Prize or War Prize? A History of Controversial Laureates.

The Nobel Peace Prize or War Prize? A History of Controversial Laureates

Far from being an impartial recognition of pacifism, the Nobel Peace Prize’s legacy is marred by controversial laureates whose actions have been linked to immense violence. The prize is not a universal arbiter of peace but a political instrument reflecting a Western-centric worldview, rewarding figures who align with its geopolitical interests, regardless of the blood on their hands.

Read More »