The World Health Organization (WHO) has declared that an Ebola outbreak in Uganda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) is a “public health emergency of international concern”, setting off alarm bells around the world.

The WHO’s announcement on Sunday came as several countries are battling to contain a hantavirus outbreak linked to a cruise ship trip to South America.

While the cause and treatment for the two viruses differ, news of their outbreaks has caused world leaders and health agencies to question what this means for international travel and cross-border coordination in containing them. These questions are particularly pertinent following the COVID-19 pandemic, which resulted in global lockdowns due to the lack of preparedness for the spread of the coronavirus.

But as the WHO faces a funding crisis, is the world better prepared now if another pandemic occurs – or could it be even less so?

Here’s what we know:

Why is the WHO facing a funding crisis?

Every time a health emergency occurs anywhere in the world, the first response of the WHO is to determine the danger the disease poses and then implement a plan to respond to it.

But since 2025, the United Nations health agency has been struggling financially due to a lack of funding from donors.

WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus warned in May 2025 that global health would be at serious risk without enough donor support and that the agency was facing “the greatest disruption to global health financing in memory”.

The crisis deepened after the United States, which had previously covered nearly one-fifth of the WHO’s budget, officially withdrew from the organisation in January this year. US President Donald Trump announced the decision in January 2025, alleging the WHO had mishandled the COVID-19 pandemic and other international health crises.

As a result, the programme budget for the agency’s 2026-27 projects has been set at more than $6.2bn, a 9 percent decrease from the previous year.

In response, the WHO revised its financial plans and scaled back spending by cutting back some of its critical programmes, which has significantly curtailed pandemic preparedness, health experts told Al Jazeera.

“Funding cuts to the WHO have directly weakened disease surveillance efforts, which in turn affect the readiness and preparedness to deliver an effective response to epidemics and pandemics,” Kaja Abbas, associate professor of infectious disease epidemiology and dynamics at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine and Nagasaki University, said.

Following the recent hantavirus outbreak, passengers and crew members from more than 20 countries on the affected cruise ship, MV Hondius, required coordinated monitoring, contact tracing, medical evacuation, and public health guidance across borders.

Under the International Health Regulations (IHR), the WHO helps to facilitate communication and response efforts among countries, deploys experts, supports laboratory testing and organises emergency responses in case of an outbreak.

Following the Ebola outbreak in the DRC and Uganda, the WHO has deployed experts, personal protective equipment (PPE), laboratory support and emergency funding while coordinating regional preparedness efforts.

But these sorts of efforts are at risk with the current funding crisis, Krutika Kuppalli, an infectious diseases physician in Dallas, in the US state of Texas, with expertise in emerging pathogens, global health and outbreak response, told Al Jazeera.

As infectious diseases do not respect borders, rapid international coordination is essential, she added.

“Weakening WHO through funding cuts risks delaying outbreak detection, slowing response times, and reducing the world’s ability to contain emerging threats before they spread globally.”

In a statement to Al Jazeera, the International Pandemic Preparedness Secretariat (IPPS), an independent entity which helps world leaders prepare and respond to pandemics, highlighted that preparedness relies on consistent funding.

“Sustained investment and strong multilateral coordination are essential to maintain the systems, partnerships, and scientific capabilities needed before the next pandemic threat emerges,” IPPS said.

What else is hampering a global response to another pandemic?

Besides funding issues, the WHO has been struggling to get world leaders to agree on a pandemic treaty for 2026 amid a pathogen-sharing dispute.

In May 2025, it adopted a Pandemic Agreement, which sets out what it describes as a “comprehensive approach to pandemic prevention, preparedness and response that improves both global health security and global health equity”.

But UN member nations have not been able to reach a consensus on the Pathogen Access and ⁠Benefit-Sharing (PABS) aspect of the agreement – or “annex” – due to differences over ensuring every country receives equitable access to vaccines and treatment after data on disease samples have been shared.

Talks on PABS mainly focus on setting up a system to ensure countries can quickly share pathogens that could cause pandemics while receiving fair access to vaccines, tests and treatments that result from their use.

Following talks on PABS in May this year, the WHO chief urged countries to keep working with urgency and said the next pandemic was “a matter ⁠of when, not if”.

“The PABS annex is the last piece of the puzzle not only for the Pandemic Agreement,” he added.

Kuppalli told Al Jazeera that getting agreement on this is crucial, as international cooperation is essential during emerging outbreaks.

“Countries must rapidly share pathogen samples, genomic sequencing data, and epidemiologic information so diagnostics, vaccines, and therapeutics can be developed quickly,” she said.

“Delays or political disputes over information sharing can cost valuable time in the early stages of an outbreak, when containment is most possible,” she warned.

Why is antivaccine sentiment growing?

During the COVID-19 pandemic, when the US and a handful of other countries began rolling out coronavirus vaccines, many people resisted the vaccines, fearing adverse reactions as social media was flooded with misinformation about their safety and purpose.

According to a July 2025 report in The BMJ (formerly the British Medical Journal), antivaccine sentiment among the leadership of US health agencies has also been on the rise. Robert F Kennedy Jr, US health secretary, is among those leaders who often promotes unverified claims about the dangers of vaccines and also opposed the COVID vaccine.

In the report for the BMJ, authors Anna Kirkland and Scott Greer argued that if health agencies are led by such people, it will “likely mean that vaccination information campaigns are reduced, vaccine hesitancy increases, insurance coverage for vaccinations is limited, and public sector capacity to vaccinate is reduced”.

“Research money will be wasted on investigating already debunked links between autism and vaccination, while vaccination infrastructure, such as vaccination programmes run by local governments, will be eroded,” they added.

This is a major issue because public trust is critical during outbreaks, Kuppalli said.

“If large portions of the population reject vaccines or public health guidance, it becomes much harder to control transmission, protect healthcare systems, and reduce deaths,” she said.

“Equally concerning are funding cuts to vaccine research and development. Pandemic preparedness depends on investing in vaccines before a crisis occurs, not after,” she added.

Last August, the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) cancelled about $500 million in contracts and grants dedicated to mRNA vaccine development. These cuts affected 22 research initiatives and clinical trials focused on emerging pathogens, pandemic flu, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), and COVID-19 boosters, according to Harvard University’s TH Chan School of Public Health.

Kuppalli said the development of mRNA vaccines targeting H5N1 avian influenza is an important effort in preparing for the possibility of a pandemic.

“Reductions in funding for these types of programmes risk slowing scientific progress, limiting manufacturing readiness, and leaving the world less prepared when the next outbreak emerges,” she said.

Is the world economically prepared for a pandemic?

Amid antivaccine movements and funding cuts, the current state of the world economy is also making it challenging for world leaders to prepare a pandemic response.

The US-Israel war on Iran has resulted in a sharp rise in oil and gas prices, which has in turn upended the world economy. High fuel costs have disrupted supply chains and international travel, resulting in a spike in the cost of medicines. In the United Kingdom, for example, pharmacies are charging 20 to 30 percent more for over-the-counter medicines. In India, chemists are reporting price rises of common painkillers of as much as 96 percent.

“Wars and economic pressures also strain supply chains, divert government resources, displace populations and weaken already fragile health systems. These all increase the risk of outbreaks spreading unchecked,” Kuppalli warned.

“Emerging infectious diseases are becoming more frequent and more complex, yet many countries are reducing investments in preparedness rather than strengthening them. The result is a growing mismatch between the scale of the threat and the resources available to respond,” she said.

IPPS told Al Jazeera that pandemics and disease outbreaks have devastating economic consequences. “In 2020 alone, the global economy contracted by around 3 percent of GDP, representing trillions of dollars in lost output, alongside widespread job losses and trade disruption.”

“Sustained investment in pandemic preparedness and response (PPR) can help prevent such losses by ensuring that vaccines, therapeutics, and diagnostics are ready to deploy rapidly when new threats emerge,” IPPS said.

Investing in research and development during peacetime ensures that when the next pandemic threat arises, the world has products and systems in place to respond quickly, protect lives, and avoid the economic losses experienced during COVID-19, it added.

“Sustained and diversified funding for pandemic preparedness is not just a health priority; it is also an economic safeguard.”

Has there been any progress at all since COVID-19?

“The pandemic taught all of us many lessons, especially that global threats demand a global response,” Ghebreyesus said in February, six years after the COVID-19 pandemic hit. “Solidarity is the best immunity,” he added.

Besides adopting a Pandemic Agreement last May, in 2022, the WHO launched a fund in collaboration with the World Bank. As of February this year, the fund has “provided grant funding” totalling more than $1.2bn, the WHO says. It has “helped catalyse an additional $11bn that has so far supported 67 projects in 98 countries across six regions, to expand surveillance, lab networks, workforce training and multi sectoral coordination”, it adds.

In 2023, the WHO also set up the Global Health Emergency Corps “in response to the gaps and challenges identified during the COVID-19 response”. The Corps mainly supports countries experiencing public health emergencies “by assessing emergency workforce capacities, rapidly deploying surge support, and creating a network of emergency leaders from multiple countries to share best practices and coordinate responses”.

As a result of all this, Kuppalli said, there are reasons to be hopeful.

“One of the clearest lessons from recent outbreaks is that the global scientific and public health community can collaborate remarkably quickly when faced with an urgent threat,” she said.

She noted how during COVID-19, scientists around the world rapidly shared genomic sequences, clinical data and research findings in real time.

“The development of highly effective COVID-19 vaccines in less than a year was a historic scientific achievement and demonstrated what is possible when there is political will, funding, international cooperation, and regulatory flexibility,” she said.

“In addition, advances in vaccine platforms, particularly mRNA technology, mean we now have the capability to design and begin producing candidate vaccines much faster than in the past,” she explained.

“While many challenges remain, including funding, misinformation, and geopolitical tensions, the scientific progress made over the last several years has unquestionably improved our ability to detect emerging threats and develop medical countermeasures more rapidly than ever before,” she added.