Breakthroughs Blog: USAID

Over the past century, partnerships between the US government and scientists have led to major breakthroughs in global health research and development (R&D). Consistent US government funding, combined with the nation’s strong research universities and entrepreneurial spirit, has positioned America as a world leader. This investment has paid off in both health and economic gains. However, that foundation has recently weakened, as US government actions have sharply reduced research spending and limited global health research collaborations. These changes risk driving US researchers abroad and eroding the very strengths that made the United States such a scientific powerhouse. The result could be fewer breakthroughs, fewer economic benefits, and a costly brain drain for our nation. How we got here America’s global health research leadership is built on the backbone of decades of government investment by agencies like the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the US Agency for International Development (USAID). This support built a top-tier talent pool at home and drew innovators from abroad—giving the United States a strong competitive advantage. That advantage is now in jeopardy. Recent policy and budget decisions have led to the termination of thousands of NIH grants, the wind-down of BARDA’s mRNA vaccine work, the closure of USAID and near-total cancellation of its health R&D awards, and the loss of more than 20,000 jobs at the Department of Health and Human Services. More cuts and restructuring are proposed.New federal rules are also disrupting universities—the backbone of US biomedical research. To stay eligible for federal funding, institutions must meet shifting requirements, adding costs and uncertainty. At the same time, new NIH policies have restricted international partnerships and broadly limited "dangerous gain-of-function research,” including studies that leading experts consider to be safe. Research on infectious diseases like tuberculosis has been disrupted as a result.  Funding for training young scientists is also falling. NIH’s main program for supporting early-career researchers saw its grant spending drop from $2.2 billion in 2024 to $1.7 billion in 2025. Without reliable support, many students and junior researchers may take their talents abroad—or abandon their field altogether. The international response In the wake of these changes, other countries are moving quickly to recruit US researchers.  In May, the European Union pledged $567 million over three years to “make Europe a magnet for researchers.” Similarly, the Netherlands launched a new fund to attract top international scientists, and Norway unveiled a £7.2 million program to recruit researchers. The head of Norway’s Research Council pointed to the pressure US researchers are facing on academic freedom as part of its rationale.  Individual universities are also joining in. Aix-Marseille University in France launched its Safe Place for Science program to attract US scientists who may “feel threatened or hindered in their research.” The Free University Brussels created a dedicated point of contact for US researchers interesting in continuing their work in Belgium. The message from abroad is clear: America’s loss can be their gain. So what?As the US retreats, the center of gravity for biomedical research may shift overseas. Data from Nature’s jobs board shows that in the first few months of the current administration, US job-seekers applying abroad rose sharply: 41 percent more to Canada, 32 percent to Europe, 20 percent to China, and 39 percent to other Asian countries compared to the same period in 2024.  Early-career researchers are being hit hardest. At the most innovative and impactful stage of their careers, opportunities are disappearing. Many have been left jobless or unsure if they have a future in their field. The US economy is also at stake. In 2024, NIH-funded research supported more than 400,000 jobs across all 50 states and generated $94.60 billion in economic activity—a return of $2.56 for every dollar spent. Reductions in US spending could shift those economic benefits to other countries. And since no other nation has the resources to fully replace the US’s historic role, we could see fewer medical breakthroughs for the world overall. Without strong and predictable federal research support, the United States risks losing its place as a top engine of global biomedical progress. Young researchers see more uncertainty than opportunity, and other nations are investing heavily to take the lead, accelerating a US brain drain. If US policymakers do not act to restore the foundational factors that rooted American scientific leadership, the future of science may unfold elsewhere—and the next generation of discoveries may not be American-led.  

In a surprising move, House appropriators advanced out of committee yesterday a fiscal year 2026 funding bill that codifies the closure of the US Agency for International Development (USAID) and cuts global health spending—yet delivers nearly $6 billion more than the White House requested, putting Congress on a collision course with the administration’s global health agenda.  Funding highlightsThe bill, covering National Security, State, and Related Programs, allocates $9.5 billion in funding for global health activities at the Department of State. This includes $5.9 billion for programs historically housed at State and $3.6 billion for programs formerly housed at USAID that have been absorbed into State following the administration’s official closure of the agency on July 1.This development is a glass-half-full or glass-half-empty outcome, depending on how advocates choose to view it. While this funding represents a $511.7 million (5 percent) cut to global health programs overall compared to fiscal year 2025 (FY25) enacted levels, it is also $5.7 billion above what was proposed in the President’s Budget Request, which would have represented a massive 62 percent cut.Many political observers had anticipated that the House would put forward a bill closely aligned with the President’s request, so it is both surprising and welcome news that House appropriators have advanced legislation maintaining substantial funding across many programmatic areas the administration has sought to drastically cut or eliminate. Beyond topline funding, the bill and accompanying report also diverge from the president’s proposal in other key ways. While the administration proposed eliminating funding for family planning and reproductive health, neglected tropical diseases, vulnerable children, nutrition, maternal and child health activities (except polio), and certain HIV/AIDS activities (formerly at USAID) and announced it would stop financial contributions to Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, the House bill retains funding across each of these aforementioned areas.  Additionally, the bill and report include welcome language affirming that House appropriators believe—in agreement with advocates—that investments in global health make America safer, stronger, and more prosperous. They also included language advocated for by GHTC, allowing appropriated funds to be used to support research and noting that the committee “supports investments in research, development, and introduction of innovative technologies” for global health, alongside other language supportive of research and innovation for specific health areas. The report also directs that global health security funding be made available to support the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, an international vaccine development partnership, consistent with prior fiscal year levels, which was $100 million. It is positive to see the House send a clear and unequivocal message to the administration that investments in research and development (R&D) are essential to delivering on the United States’ global health goals, given that the vast majority of global health awards financing R&D were terminated earlier this year, following the administration’s foreign assistance review.“Investments in global health programming are a fundamental pillar of America’s national security agenda. It makes America safer by supporting early detection and protection from dangerous outbreaks…and improving health infrastructure to bolster prevention, preparedness, and response….It makes American stronger and more prosperous by strengthening global economic stability…and unleashes American ingenuity in creating medicines, treatment, technology…and more.” – House FY26 National Security, State, and Related Programs billConcerning cuts The cuts in the bill from FY25 enacted funding levels are spread across several initiatives and health areas, including reductions to the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR); the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria; family planning and reproductive health; and topline funding for former USAID global health programs, which could potentially trickle down to cuts to global health security programming, given specific funding levels for this area were not specified in the bill or report. See the chart below for a more detailed comparison of funding lines in the House bill and percent changes compared to FY25 enacted and the President’s Budget Request. Program House FY26 bill ($ million) FY26 House vs FY25 enacted (%) FY26 House vs PBR (%) Global Health Programs, all $9,518 -5% +151% State Global Health Programs $5,895 -2% +55% PEPFAR $4,395 0% +51%  Global Fund $1,500 -9% Undefined* Former USAID Global Health Programs, now State $3,623 -9% Eliminated in PBR Maternal & Child Health $915 0% +976% of which Gavi $300 0% Eliminated in PBR Nutrition $172.5 +5% Eliminated in PBR HIV/AIDS† $330 0% Eliminated in PBR Vulnerable Children $32.5 +3% Eliminated in PBR Tuberculosis $394.5 0% +122% Malaria $800 +1% +89% Neglected Tropical Diseases $114.5 0% Eliminated in PBR Global Health Security‡ Undefined N/A N/A Family planning and reproductive health, across Up to $461 -24% Eliminated in PBR UNFPA§ $0 -100% Eliminated in PBR  *The PBR did not specify funding for the Global Fund but specified that a contribution could be made using Global Health Program funds. †  HIV/AIDS formerly at USAID are transferred to PEPFAR, adding to the PEPFAR amount reported in this table. ‡ Funded at $700 million in FY25 and funded at $200 million in PBR but not specified in House FY26 bill.  § Funded at $32.5 million in FY25 but eliminated in House bill and PBR.  These concerning proposed cuts could threaten decades of progress in advancing better health for families around the world and weaken America’s defenses against global disease threats. The bill also includes policy riders that prohibit funding for vital global actors, including the United Nations Population Fund and the World Health Organization, the latter in alignment with the administration’s executive order withdrawing from the organization. The bill also reaffirms the expanded “Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance” or “Mexico City Policy” restrictions, as well as forbids funding to organizations that provide transgender medical services, to any laboratories owned or controlled by adversary nations including China, or to support gain-of-function research, the last of which is written broadly enough to implicate both potentially dangerous research on pandemic risks as well as far lower-risk studies on infectious diseases. While the more favorable-than-expected House funding numbers represent a relatively positive development, in the context of USAID’s closure, mass grant terminations, and recent large-scale reductions in staffing at State, the bill also raises concerns about whether the State Department has the technical expertise or operational capacity to manage the former USAID portfolio effectively. It could also tee up a constitutional showdown in the courts if the administration ultimately chooses not to dispense funding as directed by congressional lawmakers or could spur further administration-driven efforts to claw back funding through recissions. What comes next The bill also represents just the first step in a long political process ahead. It will next go to the full House for a vote, then the Senate will advance its parallel bill, and then the two bills will need to be conferenced to work out differences before being re-voted on by both chambers and sent to President Donald Trump’s desk for signature. With its higher-than-expected funding relative to the White House’s request, the House bill provides a better starting place for these bicameral negotiations than many advocates anticipated we’d see this summer. Historically, the Senate has proposed higher funding levels for global health than the House and rejected many of the lower chamber’s more controversial political policy riders, so if the two chambers are able to reach a compromise and pass a bill, we could hopefully see funding levels increase to even closer to FY25 enacted levels, with some riders removed.  For many advocates and political observers, this bill and report represent a confusing split screen—the same Republican lawmakers who just recently voted to rescind millions in global health funds are now advancing relatively healthy funding for the same priorities. Does this indicate a change of heart? A divide between the beliefs of appropriators and other members of Congress? If such a bill advances, will the administration follow congressional directives, and will those same members push back if it doesn’t? Only time and the persistent work of advocates will tell.

For decades, strong US government investment in biomedical innovation has fueled the development of new vaccines, treatments, and other breakthrough global health technologies that have saved and improved millions of lives around the world and here at home. Unfortunately, in recent months, we have seen these investments decline significantly, as the US government has shrunk its foreign assistance footprint and ended hundreds of medical research grants. With the majority of global health research programs at the US Agency for International Development (USAID) and many other key US agency programs facing an uncertain future, past progress and future gains in global health innovation are now at risk. These disruptions threaten to undermine the United States’ longstanding role as a global leader in biomedical innovation, compromise the return on previous investments, and heighten health risks for people in the United States and around the world.The current US administration has signaled its priority to make America safer, stronger, and more prosperous—a goal which is directly aligned with the outcomes of global health research and development (R&D). By embracing ongoing commitments and continuing to invest in global health R&D, US policymakers can safeguard the well-being, resilience, and economic prosperity of the American people—advancing the agenda of the US administration while simultaneously saving and improving lives around the world. Global health R&D protects Americans from disease threats and promotes international stabilityDisease threats know no borders. Americans are increasingly at risk of emerging and neglected diseases, as underscored by the recent domestic outbreaks of H5N1, measles, mpox, and tuberculosis. Right now, health technologies developed with US funding are protecting Americans and ensuring that the United States is equipped with the proper tools to mitigate disease threats. The 2025 outbreak of Sudan virus, which can cause Ebola disease in humans, in Uganda was the latest Ebola outbreak that endangered the well-being of citizens worldwide. In addition to providing critical monetary and technical assistance contributions to Uganda to combat this outbreak, the US government also donated courses of an experimental monoclonal antibody treatment that was developed with US funding and 500 rapid detection test kits to support ongoing surveillance and prevention of future outbreaks. Additionally, other global partners launched two major clinical trials testing an experimental vaccine and therapeutics, including the monoclonal antibody therapy and an antiviral treatment, all of which were developed with past US government support. Collectively, these interventions and the rapid response effort helped stop the virus from spreading beyond Ugandan borders, ultimately protecting lives around the world and quelling the potential threat to Americans. Thanks to sustained US investment in Ebola research and outbreak response since 2011, the United States had the knowledge, infrastructure, and tools needed to respond quickly and effectively to the recent outbreak—minimizing the threat to regional stability and American public health.Beyond Ebola, the US government has also advanced other global health breakthroughs that have directly benefited Americans, including new drug-resistant tuberculosis treatments, long-acting HIV prevention and treatment options, and vaccines for mpox.Global health R&D strengthens US global influence, while also protecting military personnelGlobal health R&D has historically been a powerful diplomatic tool for the United States in strengthening its partnerships and ties around the world. By drawing back its investments, the United States risks ceding leadership in the foreign policy and medical research space to other countries—including its geopolitical rivals—who could step up to fill part of the vacuum left behind. Take China for example: in recent years, it has continued to grow its R&D investments, diminishing the gap between American and Chinese investments. Additionally, at the 2024 Forum on China Africa Cooperation, the Chinese government announced plans to encourage Chinese businesses to invest in the production of medicines and vaccines in Africa as part of its 2025-2027 action plan. As other global actors expand their influence in global health, including through increased investment in medical innovation and manufacturing, the United States must remain engaged to preserve its leadership, uphold its values, and continue delivering lifesaving impact around the world. Diminished leadership in global health innovation could also increase the vulnerability of US military personnel stationed around the world. Infectious diseases are the single largest cause of hospitalizations of US servicemembers during conflicts, representing an average of nearly 60 percent of casualties in recent conflicts. Global health technologies advanced through foreign assistance dollars and non-defense spending have helped keep US warfighters healthy and safe. For example, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention helped create a test to ensure US military uniforms treated with malaria-targeting insecticides remain effective, and USAID supported the development of tafenoquine, a single-dose medicine used to treat Plasmodium vivax malaria, as well as the only US Food and Drug Administration-approved treatment for leishmaniasis, a parasitic disease common in the Middle East. Without continued investments in research, challenges like growing antibiotic resistance could put the US military in an increasingly vulnerable position.Global health R&D drives American innovation and prosperityBetween 2007 and 2022, the US government invested just under $46 billion in R&D for neglected diseases, emerging infectious diseases, and sexual and reproductive health issues (To put this amount in context, in 2022 alone, the US government spent $751 billion on defense and $1.34 trillion on Medicare and Medicaid). This relatively modest investment helped contribute to the development of 67 new technologies approved since 1999 for neglected and emerging diseases (excluding COVID-19) and fueled a burgeoning pipeline of 261 promising products in late-stage development, which could further reduce the human and economic toll of these diseases.Beyond its health impact, this investment has also delivered substantial economic benefits to the US economy. Between 2007 and 2022, at least 86 percent of all funding that the US government directed to global health R&D was reinvested in American companies and institutions. This investment has created an estimated 600,000 new American jobs, spurred $104 billion in direct economic activity, and yielded scientific knowledge to inspire further innovations, which will ultimately generate $255 billion in long-term benefits to the American economy.These investments have also proven their potential to create cost savings, by driving down health care costs or preventing costly care down the line. For example, switching all patients with drug-resistant tuberculosis to regimens incorporating a new drug, pretomanid, which was developed with support from USAID and the National Institutes of Health, could generate global cost savings of $740 million annually. Even modest investments in scientific research can yield significant economic returns for the United States. The good we do makes us great Investment in global health R&D makes up just a small portion of the federal budget—around 0.8 percent in fiscal year 2022—but it has a priceless impact on the lives and livelihoods of Americans and people in need around the world. When the United States invests in global health research, we create opportunities and benefit the health of people in our nation and around the world. We fuel innovation at home. We create jobs. We make friends and allies. We make the world safer, and we make our world safer too. It’s the good we do, in part, that makes us great. As the US government reimagines its foreign assistance architecture and makes future research funding decisions, global health R&D efforts must be prioritized to preserve the progress we’ve made and deliver the bold breakthroughs of tomorrow. Sustaining the US government’s commitment to global health R&D will yield strategic and cost-effective benefits, bringing us closer to a safer, stronger, and more prosperous America and world—but only if we are able to meet the moment we are in.

Earlier this month, GHTC obtained a copy of a report that the US Agency for International Development (USAID) submitted to Congress in November 2024 on its global health research and development (R&D) activities. This report—which was mandated by Congress but never released publicly—provides detailed information on the R&D investments made across health areas and the specific innovations supported by the agency in fiscal year (FY) 2023.Given USAID’s decades-long track record of advancing affordable, high-impact global health innovations, GHTC closely monitors these annual R&D reports to track shifts in the agency’s investments and innovation pipeline and to help ensure that taxpayer resources are strategically directed toward the greatest global health impact. While each year’s report is noteworthy and essential for accountability, this latest report is of particular significance, as it gives the clearest picture we have to date of what health R&D USAID was funding prior to recent funding shifts. It also offers a stark illustration of the scale of promising research that is now at risk.  Our analysis of the report along with circulating lists of active and canceled USAID awards suggest that the vast majority of R&D programs and partnerships highlighted in the report have since been terminated as the United States rapidly scales back its foreign assistance footprint and reorients its approach to foreign policy. What’s changed from FY 2022 to FY 2023?Before analyzing the potential impact of recent political shifts, we first examined what had changed in USAID’s funding approach from the prior reported year. Our analysis shows a slight decrease from FY 2022 to FY 2023 in products and projects supported by the agency but an overall increase in funding allocated to health R&D.The report appendix details 56 individual products or projects supported by USAID R&D investments in 2023, which is down slightly from the 63 listed in 2022. Overall, the agency’s portfolio in 2023 looked similar to 2022 in terms of the health areas and product types financed, with the addition of new investments in diagnostics for emerging infectious diseases. The report also revealed that in 2023, USAID budgeted $252.2 million in funding for global health R&D projects—an increase of $37.4 million, or roughly 17 percent, from 2022. This is noteworthy as it represents the highest non-inflation-adjusted baseline funding for R&D ever reported by the agency since 2006. This a welcome increase, and it also indicates that USAID was following a report language directive from Congress for the agency to increase its annual health R&D spending (for which GHTC had advocated).The largest increases were seen in funding for global health security R&D, which grew by $41.96 million or 68 percent, and funding for “other public health threats,” which grew by $5.86 million or 114 percent from the prior year. The latter is a catchall that appears to include funding for neglected tropical diseases; water, sanitation, and hygiene; health system strengthening research; and anything else that falls outside the groupings of HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis (TB), global health security, maternal and child health, family planning and reproductive health, and nutrition.USAID funding for R&D for TB and nutrition also grew by 14 percent and 44 percent respectively. Meanwhile, funding for HIV/AIDS remained the same, while funding fell for family planning and reproductive health by 54 percent, for malaria by 26 percent, and for maternal and child health by 20 percent. It’s not entirely clear to what degree these changes reflect a shift in political prioritization versus the normal cyclical shifts that can occur in R&D costs as products advance through the R&D process. Other contributing factors may include increased private-sector investment, particularly in areas like HIV; strategic pivots toward later-stage implementation or procurement; and adjustments based on the anticipated regulatory or market readiness of specific technologies.While the $252.2 million budgeted funding for R&D in 2023 represents the highest ever reported by the agency, when R&D spending is calculated as a proportion of overall USAID global health spending, there is far more tempered cause for celebration.While proportional spending on R&D in FY 2023 rose slightly by 0.51 percent from FY 2022, bringing it to just over 6 percent, this is still below the 8 percent peak that the agency spent on R&D in 2006, representing a slight upward slope in an otherwise years-long trajectory of decline in the agency’s proportional R&D spending.A higher proportion investment helped ensure that the United States remained a leader in driving innovation for diseases disproportionately affecting low- and middle-income countries.What’s now at risk?While GHTC is pleased to see the increase in USAID’s FY 2023 global health R&D funding and the increased proportion of overall global health spending it represents, this report highlights the many promising research advancements now at risk and the valuable agency expertise that could be lost amid recent political shifts.It is challenging to determine with certainty which USAID-supported R&D efforts listed in the report have been ended under the US government’s foreign assistance overhaul, given 1) that there have been different and contradictory lists reported of which USAID awards remain active/terminated, and 2) the appendix of USAID-supported health products/projects included in the R&D report does not include associated award IDs, names, or prime recipients, making it difficult to definitively compare and match projects against the aforementioned lists.However, using the descriptions and partners listed and leveraging additional online research, our own sectoral knowledge, and self-reported information from our members and partners, GHTC has attempted to match this information. Based on our analysis, we believe at least 49 of the 56 products/projects listed are associated with USAID awards that have been terminated (six were identified as active and one was affiliated with an award that ended in 2024).Given the recent actions taken to minimize USAID’s footprint and fold its remaining programming into the Department of State, we are unlikely to see a report on R&D investments undertaken in FY 2024—possibly leaving us without a full accounting of what’s been lost and the R&D community without essential data needed to understand the progression of these promising investments.Among the USAID projects we know are canceled from our analysis include efforts to develop the world’s first HIV vaccine, new tools to combat drug-resistant TB, next-generation malaria vaccines, novel insecticides and other vector control products, point-of-care diagnostics for neglected tropical diseases, and new HIV prevention products, including those designed for women and girls who are at high risk of infection.These findings are worrisome on many fronts. First, these changes risk squandering past progress and investments, and jeopardizing the next generation of promising global health breakthroughs. Today, we are still without essential technologies needed to achieve a future where pandemics are prevented and health is within reach for everyone—underscoring the need for donors to sustainably increase, not reduce, their investments.Second, USAID has for decades brought unique value, vision, and capabilities to the global health innovation space by focusing on the late-state development of technologies that are affordable, appropriate for last-mile settings, and prime for widespread global adoption. Career staff at USAID also had very strong subject matter expertise. There is concern that these skills and capabilities could be lost as the US government’s foreign assistance structure is reimagined and rebuilt, meaning that terminations and the broader foreign aid overhaul will have an outsized impact on the R&D ecosystem.Finally, these investments also deliver substantial returns to the United States by strengthening our economy, creating American jobs, and keeping Americans safe from deadly diseases—benefits that could now be lost as the United States draws back its support. Between 2007 and 2022, $46 billion in US government investment in global health R&D led to $104 billion in direct economic activity and the creation of more than 600,000 jobs nationwide. The follow-on effects from US-backed global health research are projected to generate $255 billion for the US economy.As the US government overhauls and reimagines what the future of US foreign assistance will look like, we believe it is critical that science, technology and innovation remain a cornerstone of its global health mission. These are strategic, win-win investments that bring benefits to the world and to Americans.See the below links to past USAID health R&D reports and strategies, which are no longer available on government websites.20082009201020122013201420152016Strategy (2017-2022)20172018201920202022Strategy (2023-2028)20232024