Back to Politics

U.S. global health funding draws majority support

Overview

About six-in-ten adults (59.3%) would maintain U.S. global health funding at current levels (23.0%) or increase it (36.3%). About three-in-ten (29.1%) would decrease it or eliminate it, including just 6.2% who would eliminate it entirely.


On the new U.S.-Africa health agreements, the most-agreed statement (41.5%) is that the U.S. should prioritize helping African countries build their own health manufacturing, medicine production and infrastructure.

Topline

59.3% would maintain or increase U.S. global health funding; 29.1% would decrease or eliminate it.

Do you think the US should increase, maintain, decrease, or eliminate its global health funding, which costs several billions dollars per year?

  • Maintain at current levels 23.0%
  • Increase somewhat 18.6%
  • Increase significantly 17.7%
  • Decrease somewhat 13.1%
  • I have no option about it / none of the above 11.6%
  • Decrease significantly 9.8%

2026 · base n 1,000 · +/- 3.1%

Verasight PAA Omnibus Survey #2026-051

View source data

Most would keep or grow the funding

Asked about U.S. global health funding, which costs several billion dollars a year, 59.3% of adults would maintain it at current levels (23.0%) or increase it (36.3%).

About three-in-ten (29.1%) would cut it: 13.1% would decrease it somewhat, 9.8% significantly and just 6.2% would eliminate it entirely. Another 11.6% have no opinion.

Topline

41.5% agree the U.S. should prioritize helping African countries build their own health manufacturing and infrastructure, the most-agreed statement tested.

Please select ALL options that you agree with

  • The US should prioritize helping African countries build their own health manufacturing capacity, local medicine production, and health infrastructure so they can become more self-reliant over time 41.5%
  • The US can exchange global health funding with African countries in exchange for minerals and other natural resources. 25.7%
  • The US should prioritze securing rapid access to African health data, disease surveilance information, and samples to better protect the US and global health security from future epidemics. 25.3%
  • The US should respect national sovereignty and not force countries to share their citizens' health data in exchange for funding. 25.0%
  • The US should significantly reduce overall global health funding to Africa and focus only on programs that deliver clear, direct benefits to American interests. 23.5%
  • The US should only finance programs that have mutual benefits rather than purely development-focused aid. 19.9%

2026 · base n 1,000 · +/- 3.1%

Verasight PAA Omnibus Survey #2026-051

View source data

Building capacity beats trading aid for resources

Offered statements about the new U.S.-Africa health agreements, adults agree most (41.5%) that the U.S. should prioritize helping African countries build their own health manufacturing capacity, local medicine production and health infrastructure.

Transactional approaches draw about a quarter each: 25.7% agree the U.S. can exchange health funding for minerals and other resources, and 25.3% agree it should prioritize rapid access to African health data.

Cutting has an age gradient

Agreement that the U.S. should significantly reduce global health funding to Africa and focus only on direct American benefits sits at 23.5% overall, but reaches 33.0% among adults 50-64 versus 15.5% among adults 18-29.

Methodology

Full methodology
Mode
Verasight panel recruited via random address-based sampling, random person-to-person text messaging, and dynamic online targeting
Population
US adults age 18+
Field dates
2026-06-03 → 2026-06-08
Base (unweighted)
1,000
Margin of error
+/- 3.1%
Module
A
Sponsor
Verasight
Weight variable
weight
Weighting targets
age, race/ethnicity, sex, income, education, region, metropolitan status

Sources

[2]

Citation

Verasight PAA Omnibus Survey #2026-051, fielded June 3-8, 2026, N=1,000 US adults age 18+, +/- 3.1%.

https://reports.verasight.io/r/paa-2026#q-16

Verasight survey methodology

How Verasight conducts surveys.

This page describes the Verasight general survey contract, separate from how the Data Library packages it. When a wave report is published, its field dates, sample sizes, and module breakdown are listed in that report.

Mode
Verasight panel recruited via random address-based sampling, random person-to-person text messaging, and dynamic online targeting.
Population
US adults age 18+.
Sample design
Surveys are run as omnibus or single-topic waves. Omnibus waves are split into modules with their own respondent set, typically around one thousand respondents per module.
Field window
Each wave specifies its own field dates. Most omnibus waves field across roughly two weeks.
Weighting
Per-module weighting to CPS targets including age, race and ethnicity, sex, income, education, region, and metropolitan status.
Partisanship benchmark
Pew Research Center's NPORS benchmarking surveys, three-year running average.
Vote benchmark
2024 presidential vote population benchmarks.
Margin of error
Typically about plus or minus 3.4 to 3.6 percent per module at standard module sizes. Question-level MoE is recomputed when a base shrinks materially below the module baseline.
Reporting
The canonical report hub is reports.verasight.io. Verified legacy reports remain on their original hosts, and unpublished reports are marked pending.
Transparency
Verasight is a member of the American Association for Public Opinion Research Transparency Initiative.

The canonical report hub is reports.verasight.io; older reports may remain on verified legacy hosts.