Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • BJGP LIFE
  • MORE
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • eLetters
    • Alerts
    • Video
    • Audio
    • Librarian information
    • Resilience
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers

User menu

  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
British Journal of General Practice
Intended for Healthcare Professionals
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers
  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in
  • Follow bjgp on Twitter
  • Visit bjgp on Facebook
  • Blog
  • Listen to BJGP podcast
  • Subscribe BJGP on YouTube
Intended for Healthcare Professionals
British Journal of General Practice

Advanced Search

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • BJGP LIFE
  • MORE
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • eLetters
    • Alerts
    • Video
    • Audio
    • Librarian information
    • Resilience
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
Life & Times

The Trump budget: what does it mean for global health?

Luke Allen
British Journal of General Practice 2017; 67 (661): 358. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp17X691925
Luke Allen
University of Oxford, Primary Care Health Sciences, Radcliffe Primary Care Building, Oxford, UK. E-mail: ; ; @drlukeallen
Roles: GP Academic Clinical Fellow
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: drlukeallen@gmail.com
  • Article
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

On 23 May the Trump administration released its hotly anticipated 2018 budget proposal. Entitled A New Foundation for American Greatness, the document sets out a radical, and oddly self-defeating, ‘America first’ agenda that has sweeping ramifications for global health.1

The 2016–2017 budget ran to just over $4 trillion, with a $500 billion deficit feeding America’s $20 trillion debt mountain (∼100% of GDP).2 The administration aims to eliminate the deficit over 10 years by slashing $4.3 trillion from government spending; however, total expenditure will remain unchanged for 2018. You already know that the Department of Defense is receiving a $52 billion bump, and social security and federal health insurance for the elderly are to remain untouched. To balance the books Trump proposes swingeing cuts to virtually every other area of non-defence spending.

WHO NEEDS PREVENTION ANYWAY?

The Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health (NIH), and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) face cuts of around 18%. Billions of dollars worth of prevention programmes are being replaced with a single $500m block grant. Cutting prevention is frankly myopic and comes with the risk that states in the US will use grant monies to plug holes in general budgets, rather than spending on public health (this sounds similar to what is going on in the UK). Tom Friedman, director of the CDC, condemned the proposals as ‘unsafe at any level of enactment’, arguing that they will ‘increase illness, death, risks to Americans, and health care costs’.3

These cuts primarily harm Americans, but their impact will ripple around the globe. The NIH is currently the world’s largest public funder of biomedical research and the CDC is a leading producer of global public goods like training, surveillance, evidence synthesis, standard generation, and leadership. The domestic downsize will weaken health systems around the world.

DANGEROUS SHORT-TERMISM

Reciprocally, defunding global health will ripple back to undermine American health and security. GAVI, the vaccines alliance, is to receive a modest $15m increase but every other global health programme is being eviscerated or eliminated. High-profile cuts include those to programmes fighting TB and malaria (−$194m), neglected tropical diseases (−$25m), maternal and child health (−$80m), and contributions to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB and Malaria (−$225m). Support for international organisations will fall by 44% and budgets for family planning, vulnerable children, and HIV have been completely ‘zeroed out’.

America is by far the biggest supporter of global health programmes and a withdrawal on this scale will be catastrophic, leading to millions of excess deaths in the world’s poorest countries. Food aid is being taken away from 38 million people at a time when Yemen, Somalia, Nigeria, and South Sudan all face major famines. Advances against polio, TB, HIV, and malaria will be undermined and the world will be slower to respond to emerging pandemics. The family planning cuts alone will lead to an additional 15 000 maternal deaths, 3.3 million unsafe abortions, and 8 million unintended pregnancies per year.4 Assistance for refugees, international disaster response, and UN peacekeeping are all being shortchanged by billions of dollars, along with USAID and the State Department. ‘Gutting American soft power’, as one Republican senator put it, will ferment political unrest and potentiate misery for millions. Far from putting America first, scaling back global health programmes will come back to haunt the US.

A SMALL SLICE OF A BIG PIE

The cuts are being framed as reversing profligacy and forcing other countries to start pulling their own weight. America’s financial contributions are huge in absolute terms,5 but the US actually donates a much smaller slice of the pie than other countries: aid spending constitutes 0.18% of US Gross National Income — four times less than the UK (0.7%).6

America’s peers understand that investing in global health serves Western interests: by building healthy consumer markets, reducing migration ‘push’ factors, and buttressing soft power in fragile states. Trump’s cuts appeal to the millions who don’t see direct benefits from overseas development, and voters will always struggle to comprehend averted counterfactual deaths.

Budget proposals are primarily a means of outlining priorities and Congress will heavily edit the document before giving its approval. Nevertheless, Trump’s commitment to radically reducing global health spending makes major programme closures inevitable. This near-sighted abdication of moral, intellectual, and technical leadership will levy a leviathan human toll in terms of death and disease, lost economic output, and geopolitical instability. With this budget Trump is certainly laying a foundation, but it is not one of American greatness.

  • © British Journal of General Practice 2017

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Office of Management and Budget
    (2017) A new foundation for aAmerican greatness, fiscal year 2018, https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/budget/fy2018/budget.pdf (accessed 13 Jun 2017).
  2. 2.↵
    1. Office of Management and Budget
    (2016) Budget of the United States government, fiscal year 2017, https://www.govinfo.gov/features/featured-content/Budget-FY2017 (accessed 13 Jun 2017).
  3. 3.↵
    1. @DrFrieden
    (May 22, 2017) Proposed CDC budget: unsafe at any level of enactment Would increase illness, death, risks to Americans, and health care costs, https://twitter.com/DrFrieden/status/866855144125849600/ (accessed 13 Jun 2017).
  4. 4.↵
    1. Guttmacher Institute
    (2017) Just the numbers: the impact of US international family planning assistance, https://www.guttmacher.org/sites/default/files/article_files/justthenumbersinternational2017.pdf (accessed 13 Jun 2017).
  5. 5.↵
    1. Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation.
    (2017) Flows of global health financing, https://vizhub.healthdata.org/fgh/ (accessed 13 Jun 2017).
  6. 6.↵
    1. OECD.
    (2017) Official development assistance 2016, https://www2.compareyourcountry.org/oda?cr=oecd&lg=en (accessed 13 Jun 2017).
Back to top
Previous ArticleNext Article

In this issue

British Journal of General Practice: 67 (661)
British Journal of General Practice
Vol. 67, Issue 661
August 2017
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Download PDF
Email Article

Thank you for recommending British Journal of General Practice.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person to whom you are recommending the page knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
The Trump budget: what does it mean for global health?
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from British Journal of General Practice
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from British Journal of General Practice.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
The Trump budget: what does it mean for global health?
Luke Allen
British Journal of General Practice 2017; 67 (661): 358. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp17X691925

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
The Trump budget: what does it mean for global health?
Luke Allen
British Journal of General Practice 2017; 67 (661): 358. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp17X691925
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
  • Mendeley logo Mendeley

Jump to section

  • Top
  • Article
    • WHO NEEDS PREVENTION ANYWAY?
    • DANGEROUS SHORT-TERMISM
    • A SMALL SLICE OF A BIG PIE
    • REFERENCES
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF

More in this TOC Section

  • Yonder: Sexual health in diabetes, contraceptive empowerment, legal support for homeless people, and good Chinese doctors
  • Books: What Mental Illness Really Is … (And What It Isn’t)
  • Hummingbirds and Foxes
Show more Life & Times

Related Articles

Cited By...

Intended for Healthcare Professionals

BJGP Life

BJGP Open

 

Tweets by @BJGPjournal

 
 

British Journal of General Practice

NAVIGATE

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • All Issues
  • Online First
  • Authors & reviewers

RCGP

  • BJGP for RCGP members
  • BJGP Open
  • RCGP eLearning
  • InnovAiT Journal
  • Jobs and careers

MY ACCOUNT

  • RCGP members' login
  • Subscriber login
  • Activate subscription
  • Terms and conditions

NEWS AND UPDATES

  • About BJGP
  • Alerts
  • RSS feeds
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

AUTHORS & REVIEWERS

  • Submit an article
  • Writing for BJGP: research
  • Writing for BJGP: other sections
  • BJGP editorial process & policies
  • BJGP ethical guidelines
  • Peer review for BJGP

CUSTOMER SERVICES

  • Advertising
  • Contact subscription agent
  • Copyright
  • Librarian information

CONTRIBUTE

  • BJGP Life
  • eLetters
  • Feedback

CONTACT US

BJGP Journal Office
RCGP
30 Euston Square
London NW1 2FB
Tel: +44 (0)20 3188 7400
Email: journal@rcgp.org.uk

British Journal of General Practice is an editorially-independent publication of the Royal College of General Practitioners
© 2023 British Journal of General Practice

Print ISSN: 0960-1643
Online ISSN: 1478-5242