World leaders gathered in Brussels last week for Gavi’s high-stakes pledging summit against the backdrop of a global health financing crisis. The zeitgeist of aid austerity quickly became apparent: the Trump administration reaffirmed its decision to eliminate funding for Gavi, while major donors, such as the UK and Norway, decreased their pledges.
Gavi has reportedly secured over $9 billion for the 2026-2030 period, but that’s $2.5 billion shy of its $11.9 billion fundraising target for the Gavi 6.0 strategy.
The replenishment is a critical milestone that determines available funding for the next five years. Gavi’s leadership now faces tough choices about how to deliver on its priorities amid ambitious plans to roll out a new life-saving malaria vaccine and broader calls for reform.
Here are our three main takeaways from the pledging summit:
The Trump administration reaffirmed plans to zero out funding, and others didn’t step in to fill the gap
Heading into the summit, all eyes were on four donors—the UK, the US, Norway, and the Gates Foundation, which have collectively made up 65 percent of Gavi’s funding since its inception in 2000 (see Table 1).
Table 1. Nearly two-thirds of Gavi's funding has historically come from just four donors
Despite the long-standing US commitment to Gavi, the Trump administration confirmed its decision to eliminate future funding. We hope lawmakers on Capitol Hill will urge the administration to reconsider this shortsighted decision, reflecting the strong bipartisan support Gavi has received over the years.
The UK, Norway, and the Gates Foundation did not compensate for the lack of US support. The Gates Foundation pledged $1.6 billion, essentially unchanged from its Gavi 5.0 pledge in nominal terms. Meanwhile, the UK pledge declined nearly 25 percent, from £1.6 billion in Gavi 5.0 to £1.25 billion in Gavi 6.0. Additionally, Norway’s pledge of NOK 8 billion, announced last week, initially suggests a 20 percent reduction (based on listed currency; see Table 2) from NOK 10 billion in 2020 but masks a deeper cut; the 6.0 pledge recounts contributions to the International Financing Facility for Immunization (IFFIm) committed during Gavi 5.0 but scheduled for disbursement over 10 years.
A complete list of pledges has not yet been released, so we compiled a list based on announcements at the summit, press releases, and media reports (see Table 2). These tally to roughly $7 billion, but some caveats apply, which we discuss below.
Table 2. Major donor pledges to Gavi 6.0 don't offset the US withdrawal
Gavi’s press release signals a growing base of support, but one not yet deep enough to make meaningful contributions to the headline fundraising target. Additional contributors include former Gavi-eligible countries, such as Indonesia and India, as well as current Gavi countries, like Rwanda and Uganda, plus $150 million from private sector partners. Gavi also expects more pledges from donors like Japan in the coming months.
The headline figure of over $9 billion does not fully represent new funding
The replenishment outcome may be even less rosy, as the entirety of the $9 billion does not represent new resources.
For one, the reported figure of “over $9 billion” in available funding does not consist solely of new pledges; it includes leftover COVAX funds, previous commitments to the IFFIm, and other carry-forward funds.
Some pledges announced last week also include a reallocation of previously committed funds, which slightly inflates the overall total without adding new resources. For example, Norway pledged NOK 8 billion to Gavi 6.0; however, recent reports indicate only NOK 5 billion counts as new “upfront contributions” (down from NOK 6 billion in Gavi 5.0), with NOK 3 billion representing outstanding payments to IFFIm as part of an earlier pledge. The same is true of Australia, which pledged AUD 386 million to Gavi 6.0, consisting of AUD 300 million in direct contributions and AUD 86 million in outstanding IFFIm payments. (Update: Since posting, a report also confirms the UK pledge includes previous payments to IFFIm, essentially reducing the overall pledge).
Optimizing available resources while maintaining impact will take smart prioritization
Gavi’s board and leadership now face tough choices about how to reduce costs without comprising effectiveness and impact—but this should not simply be a cost-cutting exercise. As Gavi’s leadership responds to broader calls for reform, strategic prioritization will need to be front and center of efforts to drive real change.
As a fundamental principle for the short term, Gavi should safeguard its life-saving mandate and stay focused on its comparative advantage in supporting childhood vaccination in the poorest countries.
However, to bridge the budget gap, Gavi will need to find genuine and near-term cost savings. Some savings could be realized from its vaccine budget, including lower vaccine prices, although this may not be immediate. For example, GSK and Bharat Biotec announced they will halve the cost of the malaria vaccine to below $5 per dose by 2028. Additional savings will need to be generated from non-vaccine grant-based programs. These could include identifying efficiencies and/or reductions in other areas, such as health systems strengthening, support to middle-income countries, and reducing the secretariat (Gavi has already committed to a 30 percent cost reduction by 2026, but how these cuts are implemented will matter).
Stay tuned for forthcoming CGD analysis on how Gavi can navigate these challenging trade-offs.
Thanks to Rachel Bonnifield, Erin Collinson, and Clemence Landers for feedback.
