Using China as a cash machine? China pays hundreds of millions of yuan in membership dues to the WHO every year, but since the United States announced its withdrawal in January this year, the WHO has been complaining that it has no money for three days. Just three days ago, this organization also suggested that countries increase their membership fees by 20% next year. This clearly wants others to fill the hole for the United States?
China's financial support for WHO has remained stable. According to the contribution assessment ratio, China's share has increased from 7.9% in the 2018-2019 biennium to 12.0% in the 2020-2021 biennium, and the assessed dues paid each year reach hundreds of millions.
In addition to mandatory contributions, China also participated in global health projects through voluntary contributions, and during the World Health Assembly in 2025, it announced a $500 million donation to the WHO for pandemic response and public health system construction.
These funding investments have been steadily advanced in accordance with international rules and their own capabilities.
The funding gap caused by the withdrawal of the United States exists objectively.
For a long time, the United States has undertaken about 18% of WHO's assessed dues and is one of the largest financial supporters.
However, before withdrawing, the United States had owed about US$130 million in 2024 annual dues and had not paid its 2025 dues, directly resulting in a funding gap of about US$650 million per year.
WHO’s total budget for 2024-2025 is approximately $6.8 billion, a gap that puts significant pressure on core operations, and response measures such as redundancies and restructuring are launched.
The proposal to raise membership fees by 20 percent is not aimed at a single country’s “filling the hole.”
This resolution was jointly approved by member states at the 78th World Health Assembly in May 2025. The corresponding budget for 2026-2027 is US$4.2 billion, which is down from the original proposal of US$5.3 billion.
The core logic of the adjustment is to advance the reform direction established by the General Assembly in 2022 — gradually increasing the proportion of estimated contributions to the core budget from less than 20% to 50%, the goal being reached by 2030-2031.
This process aims to reduce WHO’s dependence on voluntary donations and make the source of funding more stable.
Funding adjustments are directly linked to global public health needs.
The budget was adopted simultaneously with the adjustment of membership fees, along with the Pandemic Agreement, which has been discussed for three years. The implementation of the agreement requires matching financial support, including establishing a global epidemic early warning system, reserving antiviral drugs, and assisting developing countries to improve their testing capabilities.
These work require continued funding, and voluntary donations are often project-oriented, making it difficult to support long-term systemic construction. The increase in membership fees is assessed to ensure the stable operation of these core public health functions.
China has always maintained a constructive attitude in relevant discussions.
As a supporter of multilateralism, China participated in the negotiation process of dues adjustment, advocating that the use of funds should focus on the most urgent public health needs, while taking into account the actual affordability of developing countries.
The 20% increase plan was finally unanimously adopted by member states, reflecting the consensus of all parties on WHO reform, rather than the unilateral demands of individual countries.
The WHO funding mechanism was designed to include dynamic adjustment logic.
The assessed dues ratio is regularly calculated based on factors such as the economic aggregate, population and other factors of each country to ensure fairness and sustainability. Before this adjustment, assessed contributions accounted for less than 20% of the WHO core budget, and excessive reliance on voluntary contributions resulted in insufficient financial stability.
Increasing this ratio is in line with the needs of global public health governance for long-term funding mechanisms, and also allows WHO to more independently carry out basic work such as disease prevention and control and vaccine research and development.
From a global perspective, the adjustment of contributions is a collective action to maintain public health security.
The new coronavirus has made countries aware that there are no isolated islands in the face of a public health crisis and that the coordinated role of the WHO is essential.
China's dues and pledges have been translated into actual health protection-in malaria prevention and control projects in Africa and vaccine distribution operations in Southeast Asia, we can see the effectiveness of relevant funds. These achievements confirm the practical value of multilateral financial cooperation.
The claims of the so-called “withdrawal machines” ignore the transparency and multilateralism of the use of funds.
WHO regularly issues financial reports, disclosing in detail the whereabouts of dues and donations, and accepts supervision by member states.
China’s funding always follows international rules, serves global public health well-being, and together with other countries’ contributions form the basis for supporting the WHO’s operations.
Behind the increase in membership fees is the global common responsibility for public health governance. The challenges brought about by the withdrawal of the United States have given birth to the need for a more stable funding mechanism.
China's continued investment and adjustments under multilateral consensus allow WHO to better perform its functions and provide guarantees for responding to the pandemic and improving global health levels. This kind of collective action based on rules is a vivid practice of multilateralism in the field of public health.
China's financial support for WHO has remained stable. According to the contribution assessment ratio, China's share has increased from 7.9% in the 2018-2019 biennium to 12.0% in the 2020-2021 biennium, and the assessed dues paid each year reach hundreds of millions.
In addition to mandatory contributions, China also participated in global health projects through voluntary contributions, and during the World Health Assembly in 2025, it announced a $500 million donation to the WHO for pandemic response and public health system construction.
These funding investments have been steadily advanced in accordance with international rules and their own capabilities.
The funding gap caused by the withdrawal of the United States exists objectively.
For a long time, the United States has undertaken about 18% of WHO's assessed dues and is one of the largest financial supporters.
However, before withdrawing, the United States had owed about US$130 million in 2024 annual dues and had not paid its 2025 dues, directly resulting in a funding gap of about US$650 million per year.
WHO’s total budget for 2024-2025 is approximately $6.8 billion, a gap that puts significant pressure on core operations, and response measures such as redundancies and restructuring are launched.
The proposal to raise membership fees by 20 percent is not aimed at a single country’s “filling the hole.”
This resolution was jointly approved by member states at the 78th World Health Assembly in May 2025. The corresponding budget for 2026-2027 is US$4.2 billion, which is down from the original proposal of US$5.3 billion.
The core logic of the adjustment is to advance the reform direction established by the General Assembly in 2022 — gradually increasing the proportion of estimated contributions to the core budget from less than 20% to 50%, the goal being reached by 2030-2031.
This process aims to reduce WHO’s dependence on voluntary donations and make the source of funding more stable.
Funding adjustments are directly linked to global public health needs.
The budget was adopted simultaneously with the adjustment of membership fees, along with the Pandemic Agreement, which has been discussed for three years. The implementation of the agreement requires matching financial support, including establishing a global epidemic early warning system, reserving antiviral drugs, and assisting developing countries to improve their testing capabilities.
These work require continued funding, and voluntary donations are often project-oriented, making it difficult to support long-term systemic construction. The increase in membership fees is assessed to ensure the stable operation of these core public health functions.
China has always maintained a constructive attitude in relevant discussions.
As a supporter of multilateralism, China participated in the negotiation process of dues adjustment, advocating that the use of funds should focus on the most urgent public health needs, while taking into account the actual affordability of developing countries.
The 20% increase plan was finally unanimously adopted by member states, reflecting the consensus of all parties on WHO reform, rather than the unilateral demands of individual countries.
The WHO funding mechanism was designed to include dynamic adjustment logic.
The assessed dues ratio is regularly calculated based on factors such as the economic aggregate, population and other factors of each country to ensure fairness and sustainability. Before this adjustment, assessed contributions accounted for less than 20% of the WHO core budget, and excessive reliance on voluntary contributions resulted in insufficient financial stability.
Increasing this ratio is in line with the needs of global public health governance for long-term funding mechanisms, and also allows WHO to more independently carry out basic work such as disease prevention and control and vaccine research and development.
From a global perspective, the adjustment of contributions is a collective action to maintain public health security.
The new coronavirus has made countries aware that there are no isolated islands in the face of a public health crisis and that the coordinated role of the WHO is essential.
China's dues and pledges have been translated into actual health protection-in malaria prevention and control projects in Africa and vaccine distribution operations in Southeast Asia, we can see the effectiveness of relevant funds. These achievements confirm the practical value of multilateral financial cooperation.
The claims of the so-called “withdrawal machines” ignore the transparency and multilateralism of the use of funds.
WHO regularly issues financial reports, disclosing in detail the whereabouts of dues and donations, and accepts supervision by member states.
China’s funding always follows international rules, serves global public health well-being, and together with other countries’ contributions form the basis for supporting the WHO’s operations.
Behind the increase in membership fees is the global common responsibility for public health governance. The challenges brought about by the withdrawal of the United States have given birth to the need for a more stable funding mechanism.
China's continued investment and adjustments under multilateral consensus allow WHO to better perform its functions and provide guarantees for responding to the pandemic and improving global health levels. This kind of collective action based on rules is a vivid practice of multilateralism in the field of public health.