The 2024 U.S. election will shape the future of global health policy, with crucial implications for continuing U.S. leadership in global health. The United States has long played a critical role in global health governance, through multilateral institutions under the United Nations (UN) and bilateral assistance to advance U.S. priorities. However, political shifts have challenged U.S. engagement in global health, with the politicization of global health policy threatening global governance under the World Health Organization (WHO) and dividing global health support across political parties. This political polarization in global health proved catastrophic in the COVID-19 pandemic response and influential in the 2020 Presidential Elections. With the United States again seeking to advance global health policy, the 2024 Elections present a clear contrast in global health visions across U.S. political parties – with sweeping impacts on global governance, health funding, sexual and reproductive health, corporate regulations, tax equity, humanitarian challenges, and climate change. The future of U.S. leadership in global health hangs in the balance of this election, raising an imperative for candidates to highlight their global health positions and for voters to consider the global health implications.

The World Health Organization (WHO) is tasked with the ‘attainment by all peoples of the highest possible level of health’, yet, it is widely struggling to meet this mandate, and COVID-19 has revealed significant limitations of the organisation. Despite clear guidance provided by the institution as to how best to respond to the pathogen, many governments departed from WHO's guidance in their response efforts. Is this a new crisis for WHO? Does WHO need to restore its legitimacy in the eyes of the global community? As renewed calls for changes to WHO emerge, in this perspective we lay out the obstacles WHO face to become the WHO ‘we’ need. The assumption is that UN member states need an empowered and well-funded organisation. Yet, many years of discussion of reform of WHO have failed to lead to meaningful change, and glaring challenges remain in its financing, governance and politics, which are considered in turn. The reality may be that we have the WHO that UN member states need – one that can provide guidance and advice, but also take criticism for health governance failures when states want to avoid blame or responsibility. We discuss this, by analysing three key areas of WHO'S challenges: mandate and scope; structure, governance and money and domestic vs international.

The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) 2015-2030 is the first of three United Nations (UN) landmark agreements this year (the other two being the Sustainable Development Goals due in September 2015 and the climate change agreements due in December 2015). It represents a step in the direction of global policy coherence with explicit reference to health, economic development, and climate change. The multiple efforts of the health community in the policy development process, including campaigning for safe schools and hospitals, helped to put people’s mental and physical health, resilience, and well-being higher up the DRR agenda compared with its predecessor, the 2005 Hyogo Framework for Action. This report reflects on these policy developments and their implications and reviews the range of health impacts from disasters; summarizes the widened remit of DRR in the post-2015 world; and finally, presents the science and health calls of the Sendai Framework to be implemented over the next 15 years to reduce disaster losses in lives and livelihoods.

Aitsi-Selmi A, Murray V. Protecting the Health and Well-being of Populations from Disasters: Health and Health Care in The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2016;31(1):74–78.