The presidential election will shape the future of human health

AAs diplomats and officials from around the world gathered in New York last week for the annual United Nations General Assembly, one question dominated the attention of global leaders: Who will lead the United States in 2025? The stakes of this election extend far beyond America’s borders. The next president will play a critical role in addressing the world’s most pressing challenges: climate change, global health and international cooperation. And the choice between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump couldn’t be clearer.

Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump offer two starkly different visions of how the U.S. should engage on global challenges ranging from economic inequality to global health. Their opposing views on climate change, pandemic preparedness and infectious disease prevention, and other challenges will significantly impact not only the daily lives of Americans, but also the course of millions of lives around the world.

Global cooperation vs. withdrawal from global responsibility

Vice President Harris has consistently demonstrated her commitment to addressing the world’s most pressing challenges through multilateralism and global cooperation. Their approach is based on the idea that U.S. leadership is essential to addressing global problems. She recognizes that challenges such as the spread of epidemics and pandemics and the emergence of bacteria resistant to antimicrobial drugs are not limited to individual nations – they are inherently global and require collective action.

In stark contrast, isolationism, skepticism toward international organizations, and a retreat from global responsibility characterized former President Trump’s approach during his time in office. In 2018, he disbanded a pandemic unit created by President Obama to prepare for the next pandemic. He recently told TIME that if re-elected, he would dismantle the Office of Pandemic Preparedness and Response Policy created by the Biden administration. When Trump was in office, his foreign policy often undermined global cooperation when it was needed most, most notably by withdrawing the US from the Paris Climate Agreement and initiating the US withdrawal from the World Health Organization (WHO) in the midst of COVID-19 -Pandemic a once-in-a-lifetime global health crisis. (Biden’s administration later changed course on both withdrawals.) Trump’s congressional ally, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, says that if Trump wins a second term next year, it is “very likely” he will withdraw the U.S. from the WHO again would.

Read more: The global system for distributing Mpox vaccinations is broken. Here’s how to fix the problem

There are few actions more damaging to public health at home and abroad than severing U.S. relations with the WHO. There is no other organization that has the same legitimacy, the same power to bring together the world’s health experts, and the same global reach. U.S. health agencies such as the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes for Health work closely with the WHO on a variety of health challenges, including cancer prevention and polio eradication – work that would be significantly affected if Trump The law would withdraw the USA from the WHO.

If Trump is re-elected, we can expect less engagement in global health institutions and a greater emphasis on going it alone: ​​a strategy that leaves America and the world more vulnerable to future health crises. The COVID-19 pandemic has taught us that we live in an interconnected world – no country can cope with pandemics alone. An outbreak anywhere can become an outbreak anywhere if countries don’t work together. Unlike Trump, Harris supports strengthening global institutions like the WHO and promoting partnerships to improve global health security because infectious diseases know no borders.

A critical moment for climate leadership

The recent devastation caused by Hurricane Helene highlights the urgency of addressing climate change as increasingly severe weather threatens communities, infrastructure and livelihoods. Harris has championed the need for rapid action to curb greenhouse gas emissions, transition to renewable energy, and support vulnerable countries in their adaptation efforts. These priorities are about more than just protecting the environment; They represent an investment in the health, safety and economic stability of our children. She sees decisive climate action not only as a way to protect the planet, but also as an economic opportunity for American workers. Clean energy could be the next big job creator, with millions of green jobs created as we invest in wind, solar and other renewable technologies.

Read more: Products can harm people for decades before companies change. Here’s how to stop them

In contrast, Trump has repeatedly downplayed the urgency of climate change and promoted fossil fuels over clean energy. He has repeatedly challenged the scientific consensus on climate change, rolled back environmental regulations and promoted fossil fuel development. Reintroducing these measures would not only worsen the climate crisis, but also alienate the United States from key international partners advancing climate action. A second Trump term would likely see more environmental degradation and less global cooperation on one of the most critical issues of our time.

Achieving global development goals

The differences between Harris and Trump are also clear when it comes to broader global development goals. The Sustainable Development Goals are a set of global goals agreed by 193 UN member states, including the US, with a target date of 2030. They aim to end poverty, protect the planet and ensure prosperity for all. The United States is the largest donor to this agenda and its leadership is critical. Harris has made clear that she will continue to engage the United States in these efforts, recognizing that global developments directly impact our national security and economic prosperity. However, Trump’s actions to date demonstrate a clear disregard for these international commitments, and a second term would likely result in further abandonment of global development efforts.

Read more: The far right and the far left meet over wellness conspiracy theories

For middle-class families in America, these conversations are not just about abstract foreign policy. It’s about the jobs that can be created by being a global leader in clean energy. They are about protecting against global health threats by working with other nations to prepare for and respond to pandemics. And it’s about ensuring a stable global economy that benefits American workers and businesses.

Overall, Harris’ vision of global cooperation is consistent with the urgency of transnational threats. She recognizes that if the U.S. backs out of its commitments, it won’t just be the millions of middle-class American families who will suffer: global health security will be weakened, the risk of pandemics will increase, and climate disasters will worsen.

Diplomats and officials around the world are watching the U.S. presidential election nervously, knowing the stakes are high. Over the next five years, the decisions made in the White House will determine the fate of our collective human health. The next US president will not only make decisions for America, but also set the tone for the world. Will we work with our allies and international partners or will we step back and let others take the lead? The consequences of this decision will have repercussions far beyond our borders.