President Trump’s fiscal year 2018 budget request would cut global health programs by approximately $2.5 billion. This analysis models the potential impact of the Administration’s proposed budget, as well as two budget scenarios with more modest decreases.

This issue brief provides a landscape of the status of U.S. funding for Zika, a mosquito-transmitted infection that in pregnant women can cause microcephaly as well as other serious birth defects. The brief compares the Congressionally approved Zika funding levels, which provides $1.1 billion to the Zika response, to the President’s February 22nd request, the House and Senate bills that passed each chamber in May, and a Conference Agreement that had been approved by the House in June, but was blocked in the Senate and opposed by the Administration.

Zika, a mosquito-transmitted infection that in pregnant women can cause microcephaly as well as other serious birth defects, has recently become a global challenge, and with the first cases of local transmission now reported in the U.S., a domestic one as well. No new funding for Zika has yet been appropriated…

This brief provides an overview of the implementing organizations that received U.S. global health funding from the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) in FY 2015.

The President’s Fiscal Year 2017 (FY17) budget request, which was released on February 9, 2016, included $10.3 billion in total funding for global health programs. This marks the first time in three years that the request for global health is higher than the previous year enacted level, and represents the largest request since FY12. If enacted by Congress, it would represent the highest level of global health funding to date (excluding emergency funding for Ebola provided in FY15).

In this Policy Insight, Jen Kates and Josh Michaud look at the prospects for the future of U.S. global health policy, examining whether long-term bipartisan support may be tested during a time of political transition, and identifying key areas of consensus among policymakers and the public.

The Kaiser Family Foundation has tracked public opinion on global health issues in-depth since 2009. This most recent survey examines views on U.S. spending on health in developing countries and perceptions of barriers and challenges to making progress on the issue. Two-thirds of Americans (65 percent) overall and majorities of Democrats, independents and Republicans alike, say that the United States should play at least a major role in world affairs, including roughly one in five overall (18 percent) who say the U.S. should take the leading role. The survey also finds a general skepticism on the part of the American people when it comes to the effectiveness of global health spending, with seven in ten saying the “bang for the buck” of U.S. spending in this area is only fair or poor, and more than half believing that spending more on global health efforts won’t lead to meaningful progress (a share that has grown since 2012). Although many Americans have concerns about the value of global health spending, six in ten say the U.S. spends too little (26 percent) or about the right amount (34 percent) on global health, and three in ten say it spends too much. Most also recognize benefits to such spending, both for Americans at home as well as for people and communities in developing countries.

While U.S. global health programs have enjoyed bipartisan support in the past, a new survey of the public and findings from interviews with global health and foreign policy experts suggest a growing partisan divide, as the country gears up for the 2016 election. Half (53%) of Americans say the U.S.…

While global health has enjoyed significant bipartisan support among US policymakers over the past 15 years, the potential for changes in the political landscape in 2016 makes this an opportune time to assess the USG’s position relative to global health needs and funding. With this in mind, the Kaiser Family Foundation’s Global Health Policy Program asked Hart Research Associates and Public Opinion Strategies to solicit the views of specialists in foreign policy and global health.

After Congress provided an unprecedented level of emergency funding for Ebola in FY15 in response to the West African outbreak, beyond regular appropriations for global health programs, FY16 returned to business as usual. There was no additional emergency funding and global health amounts remained essentially flat funding compared to prior years. The FY16 Omnibus Appropriations bill, which was signed into law by the President on December 18, 2015, included an estimated $10.2 billion in funding for global health programs continuing a trend of essentially flat funding since FY10.