‘Outrageous’ backroom deals put Aids progress at risk, campaigners warn

By the Editorial Team · Saturday, October 17, 2026

The UK plans to cut its funding to UNAIDS from $5.5 million in 2026 to about £1 million in 2027, raising concerns about the program’s ability to maintain its global HIV and Aids response amid other major donor cuts and organizational restructuring. This reduction threatens to undermine efforts to control the epidemic, as activists warn that a diminished UNAIDS presence on the ground could reverse progress and leave vulnerable communities unsupported.

Global efforts to combat HIV and Aids could face significant setbacks if major donors reduce support for the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS), campaigners warn. The UK’s planned decrease in funding to UNAIDS has raised concerns among activists and governments relying on the programme’s presence in the field.

UNAIDS, tasked with coordinating the global response to end Aids as a public health threat by 2030, is currently undergoing a major restructuring. Since 2025, the programme has reduced its workforce by more than half, driven in part by funding cutbacks, notably from the United States. Its governing board is set to meet later this month to determine the organisation’s future role, budget, and staffing levels.

Tensions have emerged between donor countries like the UK, which advocate for a smaller, low-budget UNAIDS with a limited on-the-ground presence, and civil society groups as well as governments from countries heavily affected by HIV. These stakeholders emphasize the continued necessity of UNAIDS’ local engagement, especially in light of reduced budgets following US aid withdrawals and an increasingly complex geopolitical environment.

In 2026, the UK contributed $5.5 million to UNAIDS, but plans to reduce this support to approximately £1 million in 2027 amid wider cuts to foreign aid spending. The UK government aims to lower its official development assistance from 0.5 percent to 0.3 percent of gross national income to prioritize defense expenditures. Activists have called on the UK to maintain funding levels critical to HIV and Aids programmes.

Asia Russell, executive director of Health GAP, criticised attempts to phase out UNAIDS before the epidemic is controlled, describing such moves as “absurd” and condemning behind-the-scenes negotiations by powerful donors that disregard legitimate concerns.

HIV remains a significant global health challenge, with approximately 41 million people living with the virus in 2025 and 1.2 million new infections that year. Around 570,000 deaths were attributed to Aids-related illnesses. Concurrently, funding for HIV programmes in low- and middle-income countries dropped by $2.1 billion last year, following substantial cuts to global health financing during the previous U.S. administration, resulting in a 25 percent decrease in donor funding compared to 2024. This reduction brought total disbursements to the lowest level since 2007, falling from $8.3 billion to $6.2 billion.

UK-based advocacy group STOPAIDS emphasized the importance of sustained UK support for UNAIDS. CEO Mike Podmore stated that decisions influenced mainly by budget cuts, rather than engagement with affected communities, risk premature closure of UNAIDS and reversal of hard-won achievements. He urged continued funding, support for UNAIDS’ country-level presence, protection of human rights and gender equality efforts, and the safeguarding of community leadership within its governance structure.

Earlier proposals by the UN Secretary-General António Guterres to wind down UNAIDS by the end of 2026 were abandoned. Nevertheless, a working group has been developing a transition framework that suggests a streamlined UNAIDS focusing on advocacy, data collection, and governance, while transferring some responsibilities to other UN agencies such as the World Health Organization.

Three budget scenarios ranging from $35 million to $90 million annually have been proposed, compared with UNAIDS’ current $63 million core budget. Some donors have suggested a reduced budget as low as $25 million to $35 million.

More than 300 civil society organizations have signed an open letter to the UNAIDS Programme Coordinating Board, warning that secretive negotiations could result in a gradual “sunsetting” of UNAIDS without formal agreement. The letter described certain proposals—for example, budgets near $30 million with minimal staffing and a one-year transition period—as “obviously inadequate,” urging protection of UNAIDS’ global country presence and caution against relying on other UN entities that may deprioritize HIV due to their own funding and political challenges.

UNAIDS representatives reiterated the critical role of solidarity among countries and affected communities in combating the epidemic. They stressed that it remains premature to consider closing UNAIDS and that future actions should reflect the priorities and needs of local stakeholders to preserve progress.

The UK Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office stated that its priority is to support an effective and sustainable future for UNAIDS, confirming a commitment of an additional £1 million to facilitate the organisation’s reform and transition processes.

This article was reported by synthesizing coverage from multiple independent news outlets to present a balanced, unbiased account. Read about our editorial standards. Spotted an error? Let us know.