High-Income Countries – UAB Institute for Human Rights Blog

High-Income Countries Retreat from a Healthy Environment

Secretary-General António Guterres (right) meets with King Carl XVI Gustaf and Queen Silvia of Sweden. UN Photo/Eskinder Debebe.

Introduction

Global efforts aim to achieve net-zero CO₂ and limit warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels by 2050 (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2018). However, current national policies remain misaligned with this goal, with trends in several high-income countries falling short of necessary reductions (Climate Action Tracker, 2023). For example, Sweden, once a leader in climate control and environmental justice, is now retreating from its commitments. The 2024 report by the Swedish Climate Policy Council shows that recent decisions reflect a de-prioritization of national climate goals (Swedish Climate Policy Council, 2024). Meanwhile, mounting pressures to accelerate the fossil fuel phase-out at the 29^th United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP29) were met with diplomatic compromises that failed to commit to a full phase-out, disappointing many climate advocates (Carlin, 2024). These are not isolated developments. They signal an increasing pattern of high-income countries placing domestic economic and geopolitical priorities over environmental rights. As climate risks escalate, these decisions reflect a strategic withdrawal from global responsibility.

Legal Foundations of Environmental Justice

The right to a healthy environment is more than an aspirational claim; it is deeply rooted in international human rights law. In 1948, Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) affirmed the right to a standard of living adequate for health and wellbeing (United Nations, 1948). Article 12 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) further codified this right in 1966, obligating states actors to seek improvement in “all aspects of environmental and industrial hygiene” (United Nations, 1966). The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) and the World Health Organization (WHO) jointly issued General Comment No. 14 in 2008, clarifying that the right to health is directly undermined by environmental degradation and must be addressed through preventative action (OHCHR & WHO, 2008).

These legal foundations, as mirrored in the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), conclusively link environmental protection to human dignity and global equity. The SDGs – specifically (3) good health and well-being, (6) clean water and sanitation, (13) climate action, and (16) peace, justice, and strong institutions – reinforce the technical and practical dimensions of environmental rights (United Nations, 2015; OHCHR, n.d.). The United Nations General Assembly added to this evolving legal architecture through Resolution 76/300, which formally recognizes the right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment as “crucial to the enjoyment of all human rights” (United Nations General Assembly, 2022). In combination, these mechanisms establish environmental rights as enforceable obligations, central to global equity and intergenerational justice.

Policy Shifts

Faltering climate ambition echoes across the G20, the forum of world economies that coordinate global economic policy. Their 2025 declaration failed to reaffirm the 1.5°C target, reflecting a collective failure to meet Paris Agreement goals (Joint Research Centre, 2025). Just weeks after 2024 was declared the hottest year on record, the United States formally withdrew from the Paris Agreement for a second time (Human Rights Watch, 2025). Shortly after, Argentina announced plans to exit the agreement and withdrew from COP29 negotiations (Climate Cosmos, 2025). While Argentina is not classified as a high-income country, this action still denotes a further weakening of global consensus. Several other G20 countries (Australia, Japan, Canada, Italy, and South Korea) have backed out of previous net-zero pledges and multilateral obligations through delayed climate targets, reclassified fossil fuels, and suspended mitigation policies (Climate Cosmos, 2025). The United States has also seen significant cuts to climate research and clean energy programs, discontinuing more than 100 federally funded studies (Temple, 2025).

The United Kingdom, another former leader in this field, has directed funds away from climate action and toward defense and trade priorities (United Kingdom Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office [UK FCDO], 2025). In April of 2025, a group of civil society organizations filed a case against the French government for failing to protect citizens from foreseeable climate harms, claiming that current adaptation plans are insufficient (Jones Day, 2025). Germany’s government, while continuing to support renewable energy, has deprioritized emissions reductions in favor of industrial competitiveness (Clean Energy Wire, 2025).

These shifts in government focus are not limited to the public sector. Many of the corporations that made net-zero pledges within the past five years have begun scaling back efforts due to political and financial pressure. Major financial institutions have classified ESG backlash as a material risk, leading companies to scale back climate commitments (Conference Board, 2025). ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) is a set of criteria historically used to evaluate corporate sustainability and ethics; however, it is now criticized by conservative lawmakers and skeptical investors as politically charged or financially burdensome (Conference Board, 2025). Ioannou (2025) notes that this new backlash reflects deeper tensions surrounding corporations in the advancement of social and environmental goals. A deeper ideological repositioning can be seen through these developments. While climate justice was once a collective imperative, it is now being treated as a negotiable interest, shaped by national politics and short-term economic goals.

Secretary-General António Guterres at the Climate Summit 2025, a high-Level special event on Climate Action. “The science demands action. The law commands it. The economics compel it. And people are calling for it.” UN Photo/Manuel Elías.

Implications and Consequences

These policy shifts have tangible and far-reaching human consequences. As inaction continues, the risk of compounding impacts onto other human rights increases. The right to housing and security is threatened by rising climate-related displacement (Amnesty International, 2025). The right to food is at risk due to extreme weather events disrupting agricultural systems (Food and Agriculture Organization, 2025). Overall, health and well-being continue to be threatened by rising air pollution, heat stress, and vector-borne diseases (Romanello et al., 2025).

Low- to middle-income countries and Indigenous communities are disproportionately impacted, despite contributing less to climate change overall. For instance, aid cuts by Australia and the UK fail to support vulnerable nations and regional populations, limiting their ability to protect lives, livelihoods, and ecosystems (Lowy Institute, 2024; UK FCDO, 2025). This undermines the moral and legal obligations enshrined in UNGA Resolution 76/300 and the ICESCR, which have been ratified by both countries (United Nations, 1966; United Nations General Assembly, 2022).

With climate disasters escalating in frequency and severity, high-income countries are not immune to the consequences of their retreat. From wildfires in Australia and floods in Germany to storms and heatwaves in the United States, public infrastructure and economies have been strained, revealing critical gaps in disaster preparedness (Pengilley, 2025; Clean Energy Wire, 2025; Climate Central, 2025).

Aside from immediate and prolonged dangers, these events erode public trust in environmental governance. As citizens see governments scale back their climate commitments, they turn to litigation and civil disobedience to demand accountability. Globally, youth-led lawsuits have surged in 2025, seeing plaintiffs invoke their constitutional and human rights to challenge state action/inaction (Merner, 2025; Environmental Health News, 2025). Not only does this challenge the moral authority of high-income countries, but it undermines their credibility and weakens their capacity to lead on broader global challenges. Such a withdrawal is not only unjust from a human rights standpoint, but strategically shortsighted.

A view of pamphlets during the event “International Day of Sport for Development and Peace 2023: Scoring for People and the Planet”. UN Photo/Mark Garten.

Closing Reflection

More than symbolic pledges, environmental justice requires enforceable obligations, consistent funding for climate action, and consideration for the most impacted communities. High-income countries must stop viewing climate action as a zero-sum trade-off and reframe it through a shared, rights-based infrastructure of resilience. The consequences from previous retreats, from displacement to institutional erosion, must be urgently addressed. Rebuilding public trust must begin with global recommitments, inclusive governance, and transparent financing. Meeting today’s demands will require high-income countries to abandon performative pragmatism for principled action. Climate justice is not a luxury, but a prerequisite for global survival.

High-Income Countries Retreat from Global Health

President Donald Trump holds a cabinet meeting, Wednesday, February 26, 2025, in the Cabinet Room. (Official White House Photo by Molly Riley)

Introduction

In favor of focusing on domestic economic recovery, migration control, and new geopolitical strategy, high-income countries are overlooking global health in their reprioritized foreign aid plans (Nain, 2025). This retreat from investing in global health displays a departure from historically fundamental moral and legal obligations to global health and human rights. From the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), the right to health has been codified as a shared responsibility. However, recent policy changes suggest a breakdown in multilateral obligations. The blog seeks to explore the ideological and structural consequences of this retreat, asking what does it mean when global health is no longer treated as a collective imperative, but as a negotiable interest?

Historical Context

More than mere technical interventions, global health has a history of moral and legal obligations rooted in human rights. The right to health, as enshrined in Article 25 of the UDHR, affirms that “everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family” (United Nations, 1948). This was further codified in Article 12 of the ICESCR through the obligation of state actors to act toward “the prevention, treatment and control of epidemic, endemic, occupational and other diseases,” as well as the “creation of conditions which would assure to all medical service and medical attention in the event of sickness” (United Nations, 1966; Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights & World Health Organization, 2008). Scholars and practitioners over the past two decades have asserted global health to be rights-based and participatory (Meier & Gostin, 2018; Gostin & Meier, 2020). Additionally, Mulumba et al. (2025) argue that enforceable commitments from high-income countries are essential to the global realization of the right to health. Despite these observations, recent trends suggest a troubling retreat from these shared responsibilities.

Delegates from Netherlands looking at documents at AMR conference — Rene Verleg Fotografie
10 February 2016, 09:02 AMR conference – Ministers Schippers & van Dam EU2016 NL from The Netherlands

Policy Shifts

A series of global health funding cuts, including a 67% reduction from the United States in 2025, has disrupted various health programs including those surrounding HIV, tuberculosis, and maternal health across dozens of countries (Krugman, 2025). Similarly, the United Kingdom instituted an aid reduction of 0.5% to 0.3% of gross national income by 2027, most severely impacting sexual and reproductive health rights (SRHR) (Parker & Garcia, 2021). Through the Mattei Plan, Italy restructured its aid to prioritize migration control and energy diplomacy, which reduced bilateral health programming by 26% (Donor Tracker, 2025). Canada, despite earlier commitments to scale SRHR investments, paused new global health funding in 2024, claiming to instead be prioritizing domestic equity (Global Affairs Canada, 2024). Australia deprioritized health programs through a $500 million cut from its Indo-Pacific aid portfolio in favor of strategic infrastructure and defense partnerships (Stanhope, 2024).

Citing “shifting national priorities,” the Netherlands withdrew support from SRHR, LGBTQIA+, and harm reduction programs (Meier & Gostin, 2018). Norway reduced its aid by 5% in 2024, drastically impacting emergency relief and support for low- to middle-income countries (Norad, 2025). Revising its Development Cooperation Charter to align foreign aid with national security, Japan launched Official Security Assistance (OSA) and shifted focus from multilateral health to defense and tech diplomacy (International Institute for Strategic Studies, 2024).

Germany and France have reallocated development funds toward trade competitiveness, migration control, and domestic security (Parker & Garcia, 2021). Germany, despite remaining a top donor to the World Health Organization (WHO), has adopted a transactional posture that has subordinated health to economic and geopolitical interests (Bayerlein, 2025; Bundesministerium für Gesundheit, 2025). Similarly, France launched a new Global Health Strategy and co-hosted the WHO’s Investment Round but cut global health aid by 33% amid domestic budget strain (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2024; World Health Organization, 2025a; Krugman, 2025).

Spain and South Korea complicate this trend through selective engagement rather than full high-income country retreat. South Korea reaffirmed its leadership through strategic dialogue with the WHO, and Spain launched a new Global Health Strategy in 2025 (World Health Organization, 2024a; World Health Organization, 2024b; Donor Tracker, 2024). Despite these efforts, both countries have simultaneously recalibrated foreign policy toward economic security and technology diplomacy (Lee, 2024; Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Spain, 2025).

These are more than fiscal shifts in a world of economies. They reflect a deeper ideological repositioning. Many governments increasingly justify aid reductions through a “domestic-first” standpoint that frames global health as competing priority with national economic recovery, rather than as a complementary one (Center for Development, 2025). Others prioritize defense, trade, and migration over health equity as a geopolitical strategy. This logic is echoed across the philanthropic sector, where the Gates Foundation’s 25-year sunset plan embodies a transition from broad global health engagement to a finite, legacy-oriented agenda (Gates Foundation, 2025; Shefcik, 2025). This recalibration, framed as a pivot toward “achievable” goals, reflects the broader trend of donor fatigue and feasibility framing. This trend suggest that global health priorities are now shaped by power asymmetries, short-term metrics, and political expediency rather than solidarity across shared interests (Abimbola, 2021).

Human Rights Implications

We have already begun to feel the consequences of these shifts. UNAIDS (2025) warns of the impact felt in countries like Tanzania and Uganda, which have seen closures and disruption in HIV clinics and other essential services. These disruptions, as documented by Physicians for Human Rights (2025), threaten to reverse decades of progress in HIV prevention and treatment. UN agencies are also warning that gains in preventable death reduction from maternal health programs could be lost (World Health Organization, 2025b). These disruptions disproportionately affect marginalized populations and violate core human rights obligations (Meier & Gostin, 2018; Gostin & Meier, 2020; UNRIC, 2025). The WHO has reported that over 70% of surveyed countries are experiencing similar health system breakdowns due to aid withdrawals (World Health Organization, 2025c). These outcomes show the severe impacts of eroded accountability measures within global health governance (Parker & Garcia, 2021).

One of the signs at the main entrance to the US Agency for International Development (USAID) offices being taped over on February 7, 2025. This is on the west side of the Ronald Reagan Building. 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20004.
7 February 2025, 12:54:26 http://edwardjohnson.com/ G. Edward Johnson

Domestic Consequences

High-income countries are not exempt from the consequences of the retreat from global health. Parker and Garcia (2021) argue that isolationist health policies create blind spots that leave even wealthy nations vulnerable to transnational threats. Weakened pandemic preparedness, undermined surveillance systems, and limited coordinated response capacity are all side effects of reduced engagement (Bond, 2025). Perhaps more significantly, the public is experiencing a breakdown of trust in health institutions. Amid a growing crisis of confidence in public health leadership, calls for renewed efforts to restore institutional legitimacy are on the rise (Leslie, 2023; Cooper, 2025). Withdrawing from global health commitments not only abandons vulnerable populations globally but also compromises the moral leadership and resilience of high-income countries.

Closing Reflection

Beyond restored funding, a reorientation of values is necessary for a rights-based recommitment to global health. This requires the abandonment of performative pragmatism for enforceable obligations to solidarity and justice. It demands the centering of marginalized voices, the rebuilding of institutional trust, and the recognition of global health as a shared infrastructure of resilience, rather than a zero-sum game of political maneuvering. The consequences of this retreat – from disrupted HIV clinics to weakened pandemic preparedness – must be confronted as we forge a new path rooted in justice. Furthermore, for a more equitable and secure world, it is a strategic imperative that we reclaim global health as a human right.