The United States government has rolled out a new global-health framework named the “America First Global Health Strategy.” Under this plan, US foreign health aid will shift from broad, multilateral programs to time-bound bilateral deals with individual countries. The focus will narrow to major infectious diseases such as HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria and polio.

Going forward, aid will emphasise direct provision of drugs, diagnostics and support for frontline health workers, instead of traditional overhead and administrative funding. The plan argues that this approach will streamline delivery and reduce inefficiencies.

At the same time, the strategy asks recipient nations to gradually adopt greater responsibility — aiming for self-reliance over time as US support is phased out.

A notable example under this plan: the US has offered up to US $150 million to support a private-sector medical-delivery initiative in five African countries — a move meant to expand access to essential medicines and supplies.

⚠️ What Experts and Critics Are Warning About

While officials describe the strategy as a “practical overhaul,” many public-health specialists have flagged potential risks. One concern: by narrowing the focus to just a few diseases, the strategy omits prior commitments — such as maternal and child health, routine immunizations, nutrition, and broader preventive health measures that supported long-term health systems.

Additionally, the shift puts greater burden on countries already struggling with weak health infrastructure. Without sustained support, critics warn, gaps may emerge in care, especially in underserved or remote regions.

Some experts also argue that while offering quick-impact aid (drugs, bed nets, treatments) makes sense in emergencies, the strategy may under-invest in long-term health system strengthening — which is needed for sustainable disease prevention.

Finally, there is concern over continuity. The plan relies on bilateral deals with end-dates; if governments change or budgets shrink, vulnerable populations may lose access.

🌍 Broader Impact: What This Means Globally

If the strategy works as planned, more resources might reach frontline needs faster — possibly improving responsiveness during outbreaks. The use of direct aid for drugs and personnel could make interventions more efficient and reduce waste.

However, the narrower scope and conditional aid model may leave behind broader health challenges. Areas like immunization, maternal care or non-communicable disease prevention may suffer if they’re no longer covered. Countries might struggle to absorb costs or build long-term capacity without external support.

For global health governance, this marks a major shift from multilateral cooperation to bilateral, interest-driven deals — potentially weakening coordination across borders.