The Trump administration’s recent decision to redirect $2 billion earmarked for global health programs has raised serious concerns. This money, originally intended for vital efforts against diseases like malaria and tuberculosis, will instead go toward covering costs associated with closing the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID).
Two health policy experts revealed to CNN that this funding cut could lead to significant public health repercussions. For instance, an estimated 121,000 people could die from tuberculosis and 47,600 from malaria due to reduced aid. Furthermore, cutting nutrition programs may jeopardize the health of 22.9 million children under five and leave 5.7 million women without safe childbirth facilities.
These funding shifts come on the heels of last year’s drastic reductions in global aid, which, according to February research published in The Lancet, could result in approximately 9.4 million additional deaths by 2030 if not reversed. Moreover, the administration has reportedly underspent about $1.7 billion allocated for the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), a program credited with saving over 26 million lives since its inception in 2003.
Financial analysts are sounding alarms about how these budget decisions could lead to a drop in healthcare services. Reports indicate that nearly 70,000 community healthcare workers lost their jobs last year, which can have dire consequences for vulnerable populations, like men and women in high-risk groups. A decline in funding for outreach and prevention services could lead to an increase in HIV infections.
“Without proper funding and community outreach, those most at risk will likely avoid treatment,” said Dr. Jennifer Kates from KFF. “It poses a real danger to public health.”
Moreover, with the reduction in PEPFAR funding, testing rates have dropped significantly. According to amfAR’s data analysis, the number of HIV tests funded by PEPFAR declined by 14 million in 2025, representing a 17% decrease. This disruption in testing and care is a concern echoed by various health experts.
Charles Kenny from the Center for Global Development emphasized that such funding cuts could seriously affect epidemic control. “Progress made can quickly erode when support systems collapse,” he said.
Overall, the redirection of funds meant for health programs not only risks the well-being of millions but also undermines the foundational public health systems needed to combat global health crises.
