Devex CheckUp: WHO’s next leader might need to be a unicorn

Leading United Nations global health body seeks politically adroit new leader with the vision to define the agency’s role in this uncertain era and the leadership abilities to restore trust in science on a global level. Must be prepared to work under severe financial constraints.

Sounds impossible? Health experts hope not, because that’s exactly what the World Health Organization needs from its next director-general. Elections are more than a year away, but the race to succeed Tedros Adhanom Ghebresus will soon be underway.

Tedros will be passing on many challenges to his successor, including the funding gap exacerbated by the U.S. withdrawal from WHO. There is also growing disinformation about the agency, in part due to the COVID-19 pandemic, for which WHO has been accused of contributing.

Whether that’s a valid critique or just political scapegoating, the next DG will have to help rebuild faith in the institution. They may also need to recalibrate the agency’s role in the broader global health architecture to focus on what WHO is best positioned to do.

And, of course, the question hanging over everything: Can the new DG bring the United States back to WHO? It’s a big task, particularly as long as President Donald Trump remains in office, but observers said that new leadership offers a chance to reset relationships. A politically gifted leader might succeed while also successfully navigating dozens of other geopolitical minefields.

So will this new DG emerge from inside or outside the organization? Will it be someone with a political background, like Tedros? A career scientist? Does this unicorn even exist? At this point, no one is quite sure.

Read: What kind of leader does WHO need next? (Pro)

+ Catch up on our reporting on The future of global health — a new series that explores the consequences of cuts to foreign aid and the search for a new path forward.

Eyeing the exit

The next WHO director-general may also need to figure out how to bring Argentina back to the table — and prevent other member states from following it out the door.

At this week’s WHO executive board meeting, Israel and Argentina submitted a draft decision recommending that the 79th World Health Assembly acknowledge Argentina’s withdrawal from WHO, effective March 17, 2026.

Israel warned that WHO had become “too politicized” and that other countries may follow the U.S. departure from the agency, and “lose interest, reduce contribution and pursue alternative mechanisms for global health cooperation.”

“In Israel, there are also, unfortunately, strong public voices calling for us to leave the organization,” the country’s representative said.

Argentina notified the U.N. secretary-general in March 2025 of its intention to withdraw from WHO, after a spokesperson for the Argentine president said the agency lacked independence. The government said it was leaving WHO because of its “deep differences” with the organization’s approach to health management — particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic, when Argentina faced prolonged lockdowns.

But because there is no withdrawal clause in the WHO constitution, the United Nations asked WHO to put the matter before the World Health Assembly, the agency’s ultimate decision-making body.

The issue is addressed in a report submitted by the WHO director-general to the executive board this week. Based on an analysis of the constitution’s history and how the World Health Assembly has handled similar cases in the past, the report notes that “the conclusion may be drawn that the purported notification of withdrawal by Argentina should not be accepted as effective.”

The report asks the executive board to provide guidance and recommendations to the World Health Assembly when it meets in May.

Background reading: NGOs ask Tedros to reject Argentina's move to withdraw from WHO

Next steps

Why did it take Mark Suzman so long to write?

The last annual letter from the CEO of the Gates Foundation came in 2024. Then he took a pause to help the global health giant make plans to sunset in 2045 and spend down $200 billion.

What has emerged, according to his new missive, is an organization even more focused on a core set of goals, including that no mothers and children die preventable deaths, that the next generation grows up in a world without infectious diseases, and that hundreds of millions of people break free from poverty.

Those priorities remain more important than ever as donors, particularly the United States, retreat from global health spending. Suzman cautions, though, that the Gates Foundation cannot make up for all that is being lost.

Instead, he emphasized that everyone must figure out how to do more with less. That includes the Gates Foundation, which will shed up to 500 jobs, even as it creates an Africa and India office to expand its footprint in those two regions.

And for organizations hoping to tap into some of Gates’ $200 billion before it disappears, he had some advice: focus on the organization’s priorities.

If you need any proof of that, check out the organization’s top grantees in 2025. Of the groups that benefited most from the $4.5 billion in grants Gates awarded last year, WHO was the biggest recipient, with $258.6 million spread over 38 grants.

Imperial College London came second, with $85.9 million, including specific funding for mosquito biocontrol in Africa, which has always been an area of interest for Gates. And the University of Washington Foundation drew $73.6 million for projects that include cutting-edge AI-driven tools to design vaccines, therapeutics, and other health interventions.

Read: Gates doubles down on goals in a world weighed down by crisis, CEO says

Plus: The top grantees of the Gates Foundation in 2025 (Pro)

+ Not yet a Devex Pro member? Start your 15-day free trial today for expert analyses, insider insights, funding data, events, and more exclusive content.

Going backward

That is the number of people who could die if there is a severe funding retraction by the United States and other donors, according to new research in The Lancet. But even in a “milder” scenario that is basically already unfolding, there could still be as many as 9.4 million additional deaths, the research found.

This is actually a better outcome than just a few months ago, when it appeared U.S. cuts to foreign aid would be much deeper than they have turned out to be so far. At that point, the researchers were predicting 14 million people would die as a result of the termination of USAID programs alone.

Even in the mild scenario, though, researchers say the excess deaths reflect a reversal of decades of progress. And women in humanitarian crises are facing some of the most severe consequences. As a result of U.S. foreign aid cuts, women are dying in childbirth, millions of survivors of gender-based violence have lost access to care, and girls are being forced to drop out of school, writes Sarah Costa, executive director of the Women’s Refugee Commission, in an opinion piece for Devex.

Cutting these services results in significant loss, both to the women and girls directly affected, but also to long-term hopes for peace and stability, Costa writes.

Read: Aid cuts could lead to millions of deaths by decade’s end, new study finds

Also: Aid cuts for women and girls lead to instability that reaches us all

Making the cut

The Devex Power 50 is out, highlighting the individuals poised to change global development as we know it. That includes Ghanaian President John Mahama, who ranks in our top 5.

Mahama made the list because of his push for a new deal for African development. That includes everything from debt relief to climate finance, but particularly the health sector.

In that role, Mahama has helped develop the “Accra Reset,” which encourages countries to embrace health sovereignty — setting their own priorities and then working with donors and partners to fulfill that vision. It could set the African health agenda for the months and years ahead.

Devex Pro members have access to the full list.

Read: Devex Power 50

Data check

When it comes to health data, the goal should be maximizing benefits while minimizing risks. The rise of artificial intelligence offers both opportunities and challenges. AI can potentially improve outcomes, particularly in low-resource settings, but it needs to be managed carefully and with an eye toward safeguarding patient data.

In an opinion piece, Dipak Kalra, Kirsten Mathieson, and Eric Sutherland write that the upcoming World Health Assembly offers an important opportunity to set international standards for health data governance and how it can safely be shared across borders.

Opinion: Health data governance is an enabler for AI ambitions

What we’re reading

The bid to end river blindness and other neglected tropical diseases has been undermined by U.S. funding cuts. [The New York Times]

As Iran cracks down on protestors, WHO’s chief calls on authorities to stop attacking hospitals, health centers, and medical personnel. [The Telegraph]

Despite complaints of defective equipment in a World Bank-backed hospital in Kenya, investors failed to hold the manufacturers accountable, raising questions around the ethics of those purchases. [Bloomberg]

Jenny Lei Ravelo contributed to this edition of Devex CheckUp.