Europe Reacts to US Global Health Policy Shifts
If wishes were horses, then beggars would ride
If wishes were horses then beggars would ride,
If turnips were swords I’d have one by my side.
If ‘ifs’ and ‘ands’ were pots and pans
There would be no need for tinker’s hands!
James Kelly’s Scottish Proverbs, Collected and Arranged (1721)
Since the last ACIP meeting (September 18–19, 2025), I have traveled and spoken at international health-related conferences in Calgary (Canada), Brussels (Belgum/European Parliament Keynote), The Netherlands, and Rome (Italy, Senate testimony). Based on what I have seen and heard, my sense is that the MAHA movement and the global public health policy shifts being implemented by President Trump together with Secretaries Kennedy and Rubio are having a profound impact on Western thinking concerning global health policy. It seems as if the entire Western world is watching the MAHA movement and considering how it will impact global, regional, and national politics. But these experiences and encounters are biased by who I am, who I am seen as affiliated with, and my well-known role as an early objector to both “official” COVID policies as well as globalism in general. It seems unlikely that these experiences and conversations accurately capture the dominant narratives and political positions of current European leadership.
The political structure that dominates most of Europe is the European Union (EU), with a deliberative Parliament (EP) composed of (elected) national representatives and an (appointed) executive branch called the European Commission (EC), currently headed by (appointed) President Ursula von der Leyen. Von der Leyen is a German physician and politician. Her political mentor was Angela Merkel, and she previously served under Merkel as German Defense Minister. So, a very well-connected, globalist, Physician and German Minister of War. An interesting combination.
Von der Leyen was a strong proponent of universal COVID mRNA vaccination, a wide range of restrictive COVID public health policies, and was directly involved in non-transparent negotiations with Pfizer that resulted in very large mRNA COVID vaccine purchases and mandatory distribution agreements ostensibly on behalf of EU member states.
So, what is the official position of the European Union regarding the US policy shifts (including withdrawal from the WHO) being implemented under President Trump? How does that differ from the impressions and observations from my recent forays?
Overall, my sense is that European leadership is cautiously watching at this point.
Europe, with the notable exception of Poland and Spain (Spain GDP +2.5%, Poland +2.8%), is facing major internal turmoil and financial strain. Both France and Germany, traditionally the financial backbone of the European Union (40% of EU GDP (Germany ~24%, France ~16%)), are experiencing major political turmoil in significant part due to open border policies. Among those that I have spoken with, there is a widespread sense that the export-driven economy of Germany is collapsing due to woke energy policies resulting in unreliable energy supplies and costs (creating major manufacturing sector disruption), combined with a push to transition the German automobile manufacturing sector into green/EV technology at a time when Chinese/PRC entry into this sector represents a major financial threat. Trump administration tariff policies are exacerbating German export financial challenges.
Superimposed on this are strong, unequivocal multi-year European Commission (EC) commitments to support Ukraine in the ongoing conflict with Russia. European center-right skeptics that I have spoken to often express a dark view that the EC and Von der Leyen are hoping that political and financial benefits will flow to EP member countries from selling weaponry, other consumables, and infrastructure to Ukraine as the conflict continues indefinitely. In addition, there is a “bread and circuses” aspect that distracts EU citizens from their own financial and freedom-of-choice woes that are being exacerbated by counterproductive woke EC policies. From an American taxpayer point of view, our heavy subsidization of Ukraine provides the capital that the EC hopes will flow back to European coffers.
And of course, the EU, EP, and EC are among the strongest supporters of globalization, the World Economic Forum, the United Nations and its various global government plans/milestones/schemes, and the World Health Organization. Historically, the United States has provided the lion’s share of world health (including WHO) capital, and under President Trump, those investments and commitments are being restructured, canceled, and reoriented along more bilateral (nation-to-nation) rather than multilateral (multi-State, typically with NGO intermediary) agreements.
The outcome of these various changes, political and economic forces on European Union policies appear to be a wistful acknowledgment that, although EU political culture supports globalist, multilateral interventionist public health policies, the EU just does not have the economic resources to support an expansionist public health position. There seems to be a sense of resignation that the big dog is pulling back and changing its stance, and there is not much that the EU can do other than sit on the porch and watch.
Exhibit number one supporting my opinions regarding EP/EC views on US global public health policy changes is a recently published analysis and briefing provided by the European Parliamentary Research Service. This came to my attention when one of the “Patriot Party” Coalition members of the EP provided me with a printed copy after my keynote speech at the EP in the context of launching the “Make Europe Healthy Again” (MEHA) movement. Frankly, I think that this EP briefing is the best summary of the MAHA/MAGA Trump Administration's global public health strategy and policies that I have read. It is well worth reading the entire 12 page PDF document for that reason alone!
Summarizing the Sept 2025 European Parliamentary Research Service briefing “Impact of the US policy shift on global health.”
Summarized by Grok, with edits to reduce inserted editorial opinions
This briefing, published in September 2025 by the European Parliamentary Research Service (EPRS), examines the consequences of policy changes in US global health engagement under the second Trump administration. It highlights the risks to international health initiatives, widening disparities in access to healthcare, particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), and urges the European Union (EU) to assume greater leadership in multilateral health efforts.
The document is structured around historical US contributions, recent policy shifts, their impacts, broader implications, and recommendations for the EU.
Background on US Global Health Policy and Recent Shifts
The US has long been the dominant player in global health financing, contributing approximately 80% bilaterally (to nearly 80 countries, primarily in sub-Saharan Africa) and 20% multilaterally through organizations like the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria; GAVI, the Vaccine Alliance; UNICEF; and the World Health Organization (WHO). US funding peaked in the early 2000s, stabilized, and reached US$12.4 billion (€10.56 billion) in fiscal year (FY) 2024, with US$10 billion (€8.52 billion) via the Global Health Programs account.
Major focus areas include HIV/AIDS (over US$110 billion or €93.7 billion invested since 2003 through PEPFAR), global health security, maternal and child health, nutrition, family planning, reproductive health, neglected tropical diseases, malaria, tuberculosis, and support for vulnerable children.
Under President Trump’s second term, starting January 2025, key changes include:
An executive order on January 20, 2025, pausing all US foreign assistance for 90 days to review alignment with foreign policy, leading to immediate disruptions in global health programs and supply chains.
Dissolution of the US Agency for International Development (USAID) on July 1, 2025, terminating 83% of its programs (including 77% of global health awards), with remaining functions shifted to the Department of State’s Bureau of Global Health Security and Diplomacy (GHSD).
The “America First” global health strategy (September 18, 2025), prioritizing bilateral partnerships, government-to-government aid, and private/faith-based organizations over NGOs.
Restructuring of agencies: Dismantling the National Security Council’s Directorate of Global Health Security and Biodefense; workforce reductions at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), National Institutes of Health (NIH), and Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
Potential FY 2026 funding cuts and initiation of US withdrawal from the WHO, citing unfair contribution burdens (US at 22% of core budget vs. China’s 15.3% and EU’s 24%).
A continuing resolution in March 2025 maintained FY 2025 funding at prior levels, but rescinded US$0.9 billion (€0.77 billion) for specific programs like HIV/AIDS, family planning, reproductive health, LGBTQ+, and equity initiatives. The FY 2026 budget proposes a 62% cut to Global Health Programs (to US$3.8 billion or €3.24 billion) and eliminates funding for several areas, while a six-month bridge plan (October 2025–March 2026) sustains life-saving activities ahead of bilateral shifts.Key Impacts on Global Health Programs
Funding Disruptions: The pause and cuts impact at least 37 countries, including 26 fiscally constrained ones like Afghanistan, Haiti, Malawi, Somalia, South Sudan, and Uganda. Continued support focuses on HIV/AIDS, TB, malaria, polio, and health security, but with reduced technical assistance and new requirements like co-investment and benchmarks.
Supply Chains: Waivers for “life-saving” aid have been cut, causing operational halts. New tariffs on imports from Canada, China, the EU, and Mexico (including medical devices under the US-EU Framework Agreement at up to 15%) threaten pharmaceutical and device supplies, potentially raising costs and causing shortages (e.g., HIV treatments in Africa).
Research and Development: Agency cuts will impact work on HIV prevention, infectious diseases, vaccine development, biodefense, and pandemic influenza programs. Reduced global collaboration will impact on disease surveillance and outbreak responses.
Reproductive Health: Reinstatement of the Mexico City Policy (global gag rule) in January 2025 bars US-funded NGOs from abortion-related activities (even with non-US funds), expanded to most health assistance. This, plus rejoining the Geneva Consensus Declaration (opposing international abortion rights), limits access to integrated services like HIV/family planning.
Broader Implications for Global Health Equity and Multilateralism
The shifts exacerbate challenges in implementing globalist health initiatives, with only 15% of health-related UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) on track as of 2023. US funding losses (16-18% of WHO’s budget) are prompting WHO austerity measures, and disrupting operations of NGOs like Gavi and the Global Fund. Withdrawal from WHO risks allowing China to expand influence. Tariffs and pricing policies could disrupt global supplies, inflate costs in LMICs, spread diseases, stifle innovation for low-profit drugs, and widen gaps in access. Overall, this threatens progress on the WHO/UN Sustainable Development Goals, health security, and resilience in vulnerable regions.
Recommended Role and Actions for the EU
The briefing urges the EU to bridge gaps without aligning with misaligned actors like China. Key recommendations:
Increase funding for at-risk areas (e.g., reproductive health, HIV prevention, nutrition) via the next multiannual financial framework.
Enhance bilateral/regional partnerships with Africa, Asia, and Latin America; integrate health into humanitarian and development aid.
Bolster supply chains through the single market, regulatory reforms (e.g., Critical Medicines Act, EU Biotech Act), R&D incentives, public-private partnerships, and trade agreements.
Attract US talent with €500 million (2025-2027) investments and the “Choose Europe” initiative.
Expand EU-US cooperation (e.g., via the EU-US Health Task Force) and reinforce multilateral ties, including with WHO.
Prioritize Global South innovation, as emphasized in European Parliament debates (February, June, September 2025) and the EU’s 2022 global health strategy.
Commission President Ursula von der Leyen announced EU leadership in a new global health resilience initiative in September 2025, though budget constraints may limit scope. The document emphasizes viewing global health as an investment in population health and economic stability.
In Conclusion
Hence my quoting the Scottish proverb at the introduction to this essay.
It is important to recognize that, despite the hyperbolic corporate media labeling of the more right-wing European political parties as “far right” Fascists, the truth is that the entire political spectrum in Europe is shifted far to the left of the US spectrum. In other words, in my experience, they are pretty much all Socialists (or Marxists), and US thinking regarding “Austrian economics”, Rothbard’s “Anarchocapitalism”, and even the common US consensus about free market economics and the importance of supporting entrepreneurship and small businesses are foreign to most Europeans.
“Mainstream” European politics and politicians seem glad to have the US taxpayer cover the cost of Western globalist public health policies, but so far, are not willing to make covering these costs an EU priority. Which, as far as I am concerned, pretty much validates the Trump administration policy changes.
If wishes were horses, then beggars would ride. The Trump administration has put the EU into the position of putting up or shutting up regarding globalist public health policies and NGOs. And the EU and EC, under Von der Leyen’s leadership, seems to be walking away from the challenge, muttering about other priorities - like supporting Ukraine in the Russia-Ukraine conflict.
By their actions, you will know them.
The MAHA and MEHA Movements- A View from Across the Atlantic
Dr. Robert W. Malone Oct 16
I have been in Brussels at the European Union to deliver the keynote speech for the “Make Europe Healthy Again” organization and conference, hosted by the Patriots for Europe. This movement is growing throughout Europe - almost every seat in the auditorium was filled!