View this email in your browser ([link removed])
AVAC Advocates' Network Logo June 12, 2026
Global Health Watch is a weekly newsletter breaking down critical developments in US policies and their impact on global health. Tailored for our partners in the US and around the world, this resource offers a concise analysis of the week’s events, supporting advocates to respond to threats, challenges and opportunities in this critical period of change in global health. 

The US Administration names a nominee to lead US global health diplomacy at the State Department ([link removed]) , and NIAID ushers in new interim leadership ([link removed]) , just as scientists warn that political interference is increasingly threatening the institutions that drive federally funded research and innovation. From the updated Bethesda Declaration and controversy at the American Diabetes Association annual meeting, to high-stakes negotiations on the UN Political Declaration on HIV/AIDS ahead of the upcoming High-Level Meeting, the politicization of science and public health are on full display this week.


** State of Negotiations Ahead of UN High-Level Meeting on HIV/AIDS
------------------------------------------------------------

Negotiations on the political declaration have intensified this week, as the June 22-23 UN High-Level Meeting on HIV/AIDS inches closer. With a third-round draft due June 15, many advocates and delegations question whether consensus can be secured around diluted provisions on key populations, discriminatory laws, community leadership, human rights, and access to medicines. These differing positions by state and non-state actors could ultimately result in a vote on the declaration rather than adopting it by consensus. Advocates report that the text would replace commitments to repeal discriminatory laws with softer language encouraging countries to “review and change as appropriate”, while references to community-led responses and key populations have been weakened or removed in multiple sections. Financing is also a major point of contention, with advocates challenging the proposed $20.6 billion annual HIV financing target and the absence of language addressing official development
assistance (ODA) despite calls from many countries.
IMPLICATIONS: The negotiations come as the recent PEPFAR data ([link removed]) and new analyses from the Clinton Health Access Initiative (CHAI) ([link removed]) indicate continuing declines in HIV prevention implementation and service delivery. Advocates warn that a watered-down declaration could legitimize national government backsliding on human rights, community leadership, access to medicines and financing at the moment when concrete political commitments on the key provisions are most needed to make progress on international goals against the HIV epidemic. UN delegations and civil society are further debating whether no commitments on the current iteration of the declaration may be more advantageous and acceptable than a version that undermines human rights. In the final two weeks of negotiations, advocates are urgently encouraging partners to push their
governments to have stronger human rights and key population language in the declaration.

READ:
* Plunging HIV Budgets Cast Dark Shadow Over UN High-Level Meeting ([link removed]) —Health Policy Watch
* Scientific Breakthroughs and Political Retreat Set the Stage for a Crucial Global Moment in the Fight Against HIV/AIDS ([link removed]) —Global Dispatch


** House Advances HHS Funding Bill with Major HIV, Public Health and Research Implications
------------------------------------------------------------

The House Appropriations Committee this week voted to advance its Fiscal Year 2027 Labor, Health and Human Services (LHHS) funding bill, which would reduce HHS funding by approximately 4 percent, from $116.6 billion to $110.8 billion. The proposal includes significant reductions to public health programs, including $1 billion in cuts to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), much of it affecting HIV-related activities. During the markup, lawmakers approved a bipartisan amendment expressing concern over delays in National Institutes of Health (NIH) grant announcements and noting that available NIH grant funding is nearly 50 percent lower in FY2026 than it was in FY2024. The committee rejected amendments that would have blocked a proposed Office of Management and Budget (OMB) rule expanding political influence over federal grantmaking and protected NIH researchers from dismissal for political reasons.

IMPLICATIONS: The markup of this bill reflects a continued shift in US research and science policy toward reduced federal investment in public health and greater political oversight of research and grantmaking. For the HIV field, the proposed cuts to CDC HIV activities come as the Administration promotes new prevention technologies and seeks to reshape PEPFAR and broader public health programs, raising concerns about the future capacity to deliver prevention, surveillance and implementation programs. At the same time, congressional concern over NIH grant delays underscores growing anxiety about the state of US biomedical research. The bill still has many steps to go in the legislative process before it becomes law, but it highlights significant headwinds for global health and research.

READ:
* How cuts to CDC are dismantling its capacity to protect Americans’ health ([link removed]) —The Conversation
* Trump administration has its sights set on destroying international research collaborations ([link removed]) —BMJ


** Scientists Issue Bethesda Declaration: One Year Later
------------------------------------------------------------

Nearly 40 former and current staff at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) authored a new report, The Bethesda Declaration One Year Later, Continuing Harms to the NIH Mission ([link removed]) , which outlines nine deepening concerns at the NIH over the last year along with proposed solutions. This report comes one year after hundreds of NIH employees accused the Administration of politicizing biomedical research through the original Bethesda Declaration ([link removed]) . The new report notes that the Administration is slowing medical research, disrupting international collaborations, weakening ethical safeguards, driving away experienced staff and undermining public trust in science. Approximately 24% fewer NIH research projects were funded in 2025 than in 2024 and more than 5,500 peer-reviewed grants were terminated. The report also warns that the White
House's proposed Office of Management and Budget (OMB) rule, which would subject federal grants to greater political review and require alignment with presidential priorities, would institutionalize many of the changes researchers have opposed in the last year.

IMPLICATIONS: The updated Bethesda Declaration shows growing concern from the scientific community about the politicization of science. The NIH has served as the foundation of HIV research, from supporting basic science, vaccine development, implementation of new prevention technologies and global research partnerships. As political oversight expands and international collaboration is deconstructed, the US risks undermining the scientific infrastructure that has fueled decades of innovation and partnership.

READ:
* NIH’s destruction continues, Bethesda Declaration signers say ([link removed]) —Science
* NIH Scientists Issue ‘Bethesda Declaration’ to Protest Research Politicization ([link removed]) —The Scientist
* The Bethesda Declaration: A Call for NIH and HHS Leadership to Deliver on Promises of Academic Freedom and Scientific Excellence ([link removed]) —Stand Up For Science
* ‘A deliberate crippling’: NIH researchers, Mass. scientists sound alarm over new funding rules ([link removed]) —Boston Globe
* The Bethesda Declaration: One Year Later. Continuing Harms to the NIH Mission ([link removed]) —27UNIHTED
* NIH staffers published a letter of dissent a year ago. They feel it’s been ignored ([link removed]) —STAT


** Scientific Societies Face Pressure as Politicization of Science Intensifies
------------------------------------------------------------

Several prominent diabetes researchers were removed from the American Diabetes Association (ADA) annual scientific meeting for distributing paper copies of an editorial ([link removed]) (published in the Association’s own journal) that criticized the Trump administration’s attacks on research, funding and academic freedom. The incident sparked widespread backlash across the scientific community, with thousands of researchers signing an open letter condemning the ADA's actions ([link removed]) as a failure to defend scientific independence and free expression. The chief executive of the ADA issued a public apology ([link removed]) for removing researchers from the conference noting that the ADA is commissioning an independent
review of the incident.

IMPLICATIONS: Scientific progress has traditionally depended on peer review, open debate, international collaboration and the ability of researchers to challenge policy decisions without fear of retaliation. This event comes amid broader concerns about the Administration's proposed OMB rule that would significantly expand political oversight of federal research grants. Scientific independence is moving beyond funding cuts and into control of scientific inquiry. This shift will have lasting consequences for HIV prevention, vaccine development, outbreak preparedness and broader research.

READ:
* Diabetes Association in uproar after members expelled from annual meeting over protest of NIH cuts ([link removed]) —STAT
* Diabetes society apologizes after removal of Trump protesters from conference sparks outrage ([link removed]) —Science
* Police Remove Diabetes Experts from Conference For Distributing Critique of Trump Administration ([link removed]) —New York Times


** Take Action: Proposed White House Regulation Politicizes Federal Research Funding
------------------------------------------------------------

There are a series of ways you can take action to oppose the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB)’s proposed sweeping new regulations to significantly expand political interference in federal research funding decisions across all federal grants.
* Webinar: Your Comment Counts: Challenging the OMB Proposal Threatening Federal Grant Recipients ([link removed])
* Contact your legislators: Urge the White House to withdraw the proposed OMB grant review rule ([link removed])

What We're Reading

•

The Trump administration’s long-awaited global health nomination ([link removed]) —Devex
• NIAID appoints new acting director after weekslong questions over leadership ([link removed]) —STAT
•

CHAI reports impact of cuts in HIV, CD4 and viral load testing, reduced PrEP: children fare worst ([link removed]) —HIVi-base
• ‘It’s like we just dumped them’ ([link removed]) —The Continent
• In his book, self-described USAID 'whistleblower' talks about the agency and Ebola ([link removed]) —NPR
•

Analysis of U.S. and Global Fund Funding Reductions in MOU Countries ([link removed]) —KFF
• HPV vaccines allow nations, states to set deadline for eliminating cervical cancer ([link removed]) —CIDRAP
• Is the US prepared for the next pandemic? How Trump’s policies have weakened defenses ([link removed]) —Bloomberg
• HIV Cure Research: Momentum, Community and What’s Next ([link removed]) —AVAC
• ‘ … they just take one pill, so it is easy to use, more convenient … ’: South African health care provider perspectives on a Dual Prevention Pill ([link removed]) —Journal of Social Aspects of HIV
• One protestor killed in Kenya protests over Ebola quarantine for Americans ([link removed]) —NBC News
• Lenacapavir in South Africa: A Milestone Worth Celebrating, and a Reminder of the Work Ahead ([link removed]) —African Women Prevention Community Accountability Board
Follow us @hivpxresearch ([link removed])
[link removed] [link removed] [link removed]
Share this issue ([link removed])
AVAC Global Advocacy for HIV Prevention
+1 212 796 6423 [email protected] (mailto:[email protected]) www.avac.org ([link removed])
You're receiving this because you signed up for our newsletter. Not interested any longer?
Manage email preferences ([link removed]) | Unsubscribe ([link removed])