ArticleJournal of public health (Oxford, England)2025
USA's exit from the WHO and freeze on USAID funds globally: its perils and possible opportunities.
Article in Journal of public health (Oxford, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Two Executive Orders signed by USA's President Trump on 20 January 2025: one, USA's exit from World Health Organization (WHO) and other, a 90 days' freeze on USAID's funds and activities globally with immediate effect, have far reaching impact on global public health and development. Zero fund contribution from USA (currently, largest fund contributor to WHO), means decreased resources which would negatively impact WHO developmental initiatives globally. The impact of USAID fund freeze is yet to be ascertained. DOGE and Trump administration appear to have based their decision on their 'America First' to critically assess US aid to global communities, vis-à-vis the requirement and needs to their own people. However, the modus operandi and modalities of executing these orders overnight, without consulting or appraising the stakeholders was not the best way. It erodes the ethos of commitment to Global Health, International Health and Development. While World Leaders and Global-Public-Health-Community could consider diplomacy and advocacy channels, urging President Trump to reconsider his decisions, some immediate risk-mitigation and damage-control strategies could be put in place. This could include strengthening and expansion of geopolitical realignments, emergence of new leadership, newer models of programme implementation, technology enabled monitoring and evaluation that can reduce costs of programme implementation and management.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.