The World Health Organisation (WHO) has approved a reduced programme budget of $4.2 billion for the 2026–2027 biennium, down from its previous proposal of $5.3 billion as the global health body continues to grapple with a widening funding gap following the withdrawal of the United States, its historically largest donor.
The revised budget was adopted at the conclusion of the 77th World Health Assembly, held in Geneva, where member states endorsed a 20 percent increase in assessed contributions—membership fees based on each country’s capacity to pay—bringing in an additional $90 million annually.
Despite this measure, the WHO is still facing a $1.7 billion shortfall for the newly approved budget cycle.
Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, Director-General of the WHO, acknowledged the challenging financial climate but expressed optimism over the progress made.
“Your approval of the next increase in assessed contributions was a strong vote of confidence in your WHO at this critical time,” he said in his closing remarks.
According to WHO officials, 60 percent of the 2026–2027 base budget has been secured. The agency continues to rely heavily on voluntary contributions, which are typically earmarked for specific projects and lack the flexibility of assessed contributions.
In the 2020–2021 cycle, voluntary contributions accounted for nearly 84 percent of the agency’s budget.
The budget reduction comes in response to mounting fiscal constraints and a decline in predictable funding streams. The United States’ decision to exit the WHO and freeze its contributions for the 2024–2025 cycle has significantly impacted the agency’s financial stability.
The Biden administration’s return to office earlier this year did not reverse the Trump-era exit process, and Washington has opted out of current funding commitments.
In a video statement, U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. criticised the WHO as “bloated and ineffective,” calling on other nations to support the establishment of alternative global health institutions. He accused the UN agency of being compromised by “pharmaceutical interests, Chinese influence, and radical social agendas.”
The U.S. withdrawal has forced the WHO to undertake cost-cutting measures, including a significant reorganisation of its internal structure.
The executive management team will be reduced from 14 to 7 members, and the number of departments will shrink from 76 to 34. Though large-scale layoffs have not yet been announced, WHO insiders acknowledge that further restructuring may be necessary.
To mitigate the immediate impact of funding losses, the WHO held a pledging event last week, securing $210 million in additional support. Key pledges included $80 million from Switzerland, $57 million from the Novo Nordisk Foundation, $13.5 million from Sweden, and $6 million from Qatar.
“These funds will help us preserve and extend our life-saving work in a challenging global health environment,” said Dr. Tedros.
The WHO’s financial strategy aims to reach a 50 percent contribution ratio from assessed contributions by the 2030–2031 budget cycle.
However, with ongoing geopolitical tensions, rising health emergencies, and donor fatigue, achieving a more stable, flexible and predictable funding model remains an uphill task.
Global health analysts warn that continued budget instability could undermine the WHO’s ability to respond effectively to international health threats, particularly in low- and middle-income countries that depend heavily on the organisation’s programs for immunisation, disease control and emergency response.
While member states have reaffirmed their commitment to supporting the agency, the $1.7 billion gap underscores the urgency of mobilising diversified funding sources to ensure the WHO’s operational readiness and long-term sustainability.
