As 2025 kicks off, we are poised for a year of political uncertainty. There are questions aplenty around the future of US leadership in global health and how priorities will change as the Trump Administration takes office. Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's resignation and the upcoming elections in Germany may also lead to further policy changes in donor countries historically committed to global health and development. This reshaping of global political dynamics and the lasting impact of emerging infectious disease threats present challenges and opportunities for multilateral collaboration and innovation for global health research and development (R&D) in 2025. As we look ahead at the global health landscape in this pivotal year, here are some of the key issues we are watching.
1. Will the United States fully withdraw from WHO this time?
In his very first day in office, President Donald Trump signed an executive order withdrawing the United States from the World Health Organization (WHO), a move that many global health experts agree will make the United States and other countries less safe from infectious diseases and other public health threats. President Trump had previously initiated the process to pull US support from the organization in 2020, but the clock ran out before the end of his term, and President Joe Biden later reversed the decision at the start of his presidency. In the executive order, President Trump outlined his administration’s reasoning for pulling out of the global health agency, decrying “unfairly onerous” payments from the United States compared to other member states and the organization’s “inappropriate political influence.”
The departure from WHO will have dire consequences for global public health, as well as US security, diplomacy, and influence. There are a number of US institutions that collaborate closely with WHO on important work that remains vital to US interests, including polio eradication, cancer prevention, and global health security. US agencies, pharmaceutical companies, and laboratories rely on the WHO Pandemic Influenza Preparedness Framework to gain access to new influenza virus samples for R&D. Severing ties with WHO will impede US access to crucial tools for developing biological countermeasures to influenza.
And WHO’s work extends far beyond influenza. WHO has tremendous reach, working with 150 countries and 70 research institutions in the United States alone. WHO supports the global tracking of infectious diseases, updating networks for polio, measles, and other diseases to provide real-time data for member state officials to guide public health responses. The organization helps facilitate global access to a variety of health products and provides an accelerated path for the procurement of safe, effective, and reliable health innovations. WHO’s prequalification program expands global markets for US producers, offering an accelerated path for approval and uptake of American health innovations in low- and middle-income countries. For example, in 2024, WHO prequalified a Hepatitis self-test manufactured by Pennsylvania-based OraSure Technologies.
Lastly, there are concerns about how the US withdrawal will diminish its influence in such a critical global institution. While no major organization is perfect, WHO has chartered a path of reform in recent years, due in large part to US leadership pushing for more effective and efficient governance structures. US concerns will only continue to be addressed if we remain a member state, working with WHO officials and other countries on improvements to the organization. The executive order also calls for broad reassessment and reassignment of American WHO personnel, many of whom play a pivotal role in supporting and directing the organization’s essential work around the world—from responding to disease outbreaks and training local health care workers to classifying disease variants and chairing the WHO Science Council. In fact, there are more Americans in leadership positions at WHO than from any other country. Pulling out of the organization only jeopardizes the United States’ ability to continue to be the most important player in the global health space.
2. Is there enough time to successfully conclude the Pandemic Accord negotiations?
A Pandemic Accord could be a game changer in strengthening R&D capacity and creating new frameworks for the development of and access to new medical countermeasures. Reaching a position of solidarity is undoubtedly challenging in an increasingly fragmented world, but if the agreement fails, it will represent a massive failure for global health.
In 2024, countries tried and failed to finalize this proposed international agreement to strengthen pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response (PPPR). Negotiations proved too contentious and the timeline too short to deliver on a new framework. In 2025, countries have one last chance to get it across the finish line. While significant progress was made on reaching consensus on several articles at the end of last year, pain points persist on technology- and knowledge-sharing mandates and the inclusion and operational details of the proposed Pathogen Access and Benefit Sharing system—a mechanism that would facilitate the sharing of pathogen samples and genetic data needed for product development in exchange for benefits like free or discounted contributions of health products.
The Pandemic Accord negotiators held five meetings in 2024, adding up to a total of twelve negotiating sessions held since 2022. And though member states are closer to reaching a finalized text, late last year, negotiators again pushed back their deadline to the 78th World Health Assembly in May 2025. The Executive Order signed by President Trump on January 21 demands that the Secretary of State cease negotiations on the Pandemic Accord and recall and reassign American staff working with WHO; these actions will further disrupt the negotiating process, leaving the United States notably absent from any further discussions.
3. How will the G20 and G7 continue the momentum in 2025?
South Africa assumed the G20 presidency late last year, and the question now is how they will build on the momentum of global health progress made under previous G20 presidencies. At the end of last year, South Africa outlined its health priorities, which include accelerating Universal Health Coverage through primary care, strengthening health workforces, combating noncommunicable diseases, and advancing PPPR. South Africa also introduced a science and innovation arm to its global health agenda, committing to review, strengthen, and leverage member state science, research, and innovation sectors.
It will be worth watching whether South Africa builds upon and facilitates the implementation of Brazil’s signature initiative from their presidency last year, the Coalition for Local and Regional Production, Innovation, and Equitable Access, which seeks to strengthen local production to enable more equitable access to safe, affordable, high-quality, and effective health products for neglected diseases.
While South Africa has established an ambitious global health agenda, there is a broader concern that the G20 might succumb to the current tumultuous political climate—France is resettling after elections of its National Assembly last year, the United States has swapped party leadership across the White House and Congress, and Germany has federal elections scheduled for February. With several G20 members undergoing political shake-ups and heavy domestic issues underpinning global conversations, finding member state synergy will be critical this year. And the G7 does not appear to be in a better position after Prime Minister Trudeau’s resignation in early January, as leadership transitions and operational delays will likely sidetrack G7 responsibilities and hamper ambition.
4. Will the financing drum beat fade?
This year will also be significant for global health financing. 2025 wraps the seventh three-year replenishment fundraising cycle of The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. The new WHO Investment Round continues as well, and the World Bank Pandemic Fund announced that its third funding cycle will begin later this spring, shifting from the last two rounds of financing PPPR-related projects to now emphasize support for national and regional health institutions.
Yet, despite the continued need to increase investment in key global health institutions and priority areas, many governments find themselves in constrained resource environments, and around the globe, leaders are pulling back their commitments to provide the necessary funds to address critical challenges like emerging infectious diseases. Mobilizing new funds will be vital for delivering on the Sustainable Development Goals, and 2025 may represent a crossroads on whether countries can sustainably and adequately finance programs, research, and initiatives that boost PPPR.
It is undoubtedly a year marked by change and challenge in global health. As we move into 2025, policymakers, experts, and advocates must navigate an increasingly complex space. The road ahead will require all of us to foster collaboration, embrace creativity, and strengthen advocacy efforts within the global health community. But most of all, it may be the year for the global health community to showcase resilience and forge innovative pathways and partnerships that drive meaningful progress in global health R&D.