WHO Funding Shift: Novo Nordisk Foundation and China Step Up as US Withdraws

In a significant reshaping of global health funding, the World Health Organization (WHO) has seen major changes in its donor base following the United States' withdrawal. The Novo Nordisk Foundation and China have emerged as key contributors, filling the void left by the WHO's former top donor.
Novo Nordisk Foundation's Contribution
The Novo Nordisk Foundation has pledged up to 380 million Danish kroner ($58 million) to support the WHO from 2025 to 2028. Mads Krogsgaard Thomsen, CEO of the Novo Nordisk Foundation, emphasized the WHO's crucial role in the global health ecosystem, highlighting its importance in providing guidance, monitoring diseases, and supporting health systems worldwide.
The foundation, which holds a significant stake in pharmaceutical giant Novo Nordisk, has stepped forward at a critical time for the WHO. This move underscores the increasing importance of private sector involvement in global health initiatives.
China's Expanded Role
In a dramatic shift in the global health landscape, China has pledged $500 million to support the WHO through 2028, potentially making it the world's top donor. This commitment was announced during the WHO's World Health Assembly pledging event in Geneva.
China's vice premier Guozhong Liu framed this contribution in the context of global challenges, stating, "The world is now facing the impacts of unilateralism and power politics, bringing major challenges to global health security."
WHO Budget and Funding Structure Changes
The WHO has approved a 20% increase in membership dues, endorsing a 2026-27 budget of $4.2 billion. This follows a previous 20% increase in contributions for the 2024-25 budget. The organization has also revised its funding structure, aiming for membership dues to account for half of its core budget by the 2030-31 cycle.
Despite these increases, the WHO has had to downsize its 2026-27 budget from $5.3 billion to $4.2 billion due to financial constraints. This reduction closely mirrors the $1.28 billion that the U.S. contributed to the WHO in 2022-23, highlighting the significant impact of the U.S. withdrawal.
U.S. Withdrawal and Its Implications
The U.S. departure from the WHO, initiated by an executive order from President Donald Trump, has been met with criticism from public health experts. They argue that this move deprives U.S. agencies like the CDC and NIH of crucial surveillance data and complicates future pandemic prevention efforts.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services, has called for countries to work with the U.S. outside of the WHO framework, citing concerns about political interference and the influence of pharmaceutical companies.
As the global health community adapts to these significant changes, the long-term implications for international health cooperation and pandemic preparedness remain to be seen.
References
- After WHO loses its top donor in US, Novo Nordisk Foundation and China step up with large contributions
With the withdrawal of the U.S. from the World Health Organization, the United Nations-backed agency has lost its top donor. Helping compensate for the funding shortfall is the Novo Nordisk Foundation, which has pledged up to 380 million Danish kroner ($58 million) from this year to 2028. China also has stepped up, pledging $500 million over the next five years.
- After WHO loses its top donor in US, Novo Nordisk Foundation and China step up with large contributions
With the withdrawal of the U.S. from the World Health Organization, the United Nations-backed agency has lost its top donor. Helping compensate for the funding shortfall is the Novo Nordisk Foundation, which has pledged up to 380 million Danish kroner ($58 million) from this year to 2028. China also has stepped up, pledging $500 million over the next five years.
Explore Further
What strategic goals might the Novo Nordisk Foundation have in increasing its funding to the WHO?
How does China's new role as a major donor to the WHO impact global health dynamics?
What alternative methods of international health collaboration is the U.S. exploring after its withdrawal from the WHO?
How might the funding reduction impact the WHO's ability to manage global health crises?
What are the broader implications of private sector involvement in global health funding as seen with the Novo Nordisk Foundation?