The Urgent Debate Over UNAIDS Closure
Aditia Taslim, Advocacy Lead at the International Network of People Who Use Drugs (INPUD), describes the potential closure of UNAIDS as “adding fuel to an already burning fire.” She highlights that the organization is still recovering from the impact of US funding cuts earlier this year. These cuts have already disrupted essential services and programs, especially for key populations such as people who use drugs, sex workers, and members of the LGBT+ community.
The proposal by UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres to shut down UNAIDS next year has sparked widespread concern among HIV activists globally. This decision was included in a report on progress on UN reforms. Many had anticipated that UNAIDS would continue its work until 2030, when current HIV targets expire. The idea of closing it down in 2026 has raised many questions and confusion.
Angeli Achrekar, Deputy Executive Director of the Programme Branch at UNAIDS, explained that there is uncertainty about why 2026 was chosen. She noted that the agency was already in the process of transformation, which may have influenced the timing of the proposal. Despite the uncertainty, the call for reconsideration has been strong. A call from the UNAIDS Programme Coordinating Board (PCB) NGO Delegation to the Secretary General urging him to rethink the proposal was supported by over 1,000 NGOs.
World AIDS Day, commemorated since 1988, serves as a significant platform for global unity against the disease.
Many groups warn that if the early closure proceeds, the progress made in fighting HIV could be jeopardized, potentially leading to more lives lost unnecessarily. Julia Lukomnik, Strategic Advisor at Dutch organization Aidsfonds, emphasized that closing UNAIDS would make the world less effective in preventing and treating HIV, resulting in more infections and deaths.
UNAIDS, which began operations in 1996, is unique among UN structures because its governing board includes civil society groups. This inclusion ensures that those working directly with communities affected by the disease have a crucial say in policy development and implementation. In many countries, UNAIDS acts as a vital bridge between communities and local, regional, and national authorities through partnerships with local NGOs.
Doan Thanh Tung, Executive Director at Lighthouse Vietnam, highlighted the critical role of UNAIDS in providing data, technical guidance, coordination, and engagement space for community-led organizations in Vietnam. Without UNAIDS, these organizations might face increased marginalization or criminalization without anyone to advocate for them.
This concern is particularly relevant as marginalization and criminalization of key populations and people living with HIV (PLHIV) are worsening in many countries. UNAIDS has played a crucial role in advocating for the rights of these groups, contributing to landmark legislation that enshrines some rights and access to services.
UNAIDS workers provide support to communities in need of their services. However, the organization and its workers have been significantly impacted by the sudden acceleration of cuts to international HIV financing.
Campaigners fear that without UNAIDS, some communities would quickly face increased marginalization or criminalization, without anyone to speak up for them. Lukomnik emphasized that criminalizing certain groups increases HIV cases, and closing the UN body that advocates for their rights could lead to more violations and HIV cases.
Within UNAIDS, officials recognize the potential problem. Eammon Murphy, UNAIDS Director, Regional Support Teams for the Asia Pacific and Eastern Europe and Central Asia regions, questioned where advocacy for key populations could be maintained without UNAIDS. He stressed the importance of being the voice of communities at all levels.
Experts also highlight UNAIDS’ vital role in collecting and evaluating data on the disease in specific communities. This data is used to develop effective interventions and national policies. If this capacity is lost suddenly, it could be devastating for authorities’ efforts to fight an HIV epidemic.
Tendayi Westerhof, National Director, Pan African Positive Women’s Coalition-Zimbabwe, pointed out that UNAIDS set the targets for the global AIDS response, enabling countries to shape their strategic plans. The proposed closure of the agency comes at a time when HIV groups are still reeling from recent upheavals in global aid funding.
The withdrawal of US aid at the start of this year, which previously accounted for 73% of international HIV/AIDS financing, has already had a devastating effect on the fight against the disease. UNAIDS modeling forecasts that funding cuts could lead to an additional 6.6 million new HIV infections and 4.2 million AIDS-related deaths by 2029.
Closing UNAIDS against this backdrop could further imperil the sustainability of the HIV response, especially in areas where services for key populations are already underfunded. Taslim warned that dismantling UNAIDS at a time when global funding for HIV is shrinking could erode global-to-local solidarity and weaken independent data systems.
While activists warn of the potential impact of a 2026 closure of UNAIDS, they also note that it is still only a proposal. Lukomnik pointed out that the final decision rests with the UNAIDS PCB. UNAIDS officials mention that the agency had already begun a process of transformation, with a plan to restructure between 2025–2027 and review its structure and mandate again in 2027.
The first phase of this restructuring involved a significant reduction in staff and offices around the world—both are to be cut by more than 50%. Achrekar stated that the transformation was partly a response to global funding changes but also aimed to reflect moves towards greater sustainability in the global HIV response.
Despite the uncertainty, UNAIDS hopes that others involved in the global HIV response will step up to some extent to help maintain the response. Achrekar emphasized the importance of maintaining global solidarity in the HIV response and safeguarding what is critical in the HIV response and the people affected by HIV.
