The presidential election will determine 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 world leaders: Who will lead the US in 2025? The stakes of these elections 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 views on how the U.S. should address global challenges ranging from economic inequality to global health care. Their opposing views on climate action, pandemic preparedness, and infectious disease prevention, among other challenges, will significantly impact not only the daily lives of Americans but also the trajectory of millions of lives around the world.

Global cooperation versus a retreat from global responsibility

Vice President Harris has consistently demonstrated her commitment to tackling the world’s most pressing challenges through multilateralism and global cooperation. Her approach embraces the idea that American leadership is indispensable in tackling global problems. She recognizes that challenges such as the spread of epidemics and pandemics and the emergence of insects resistant to antimicrobial drugs are not isolated to individual countries – 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 administration. In 2018, he disbanded a pandemic unit that President Obama had created and was charged with preparing for the next pandemic. He recently told TIME that if re-elected, he would disband the Office of Pandemic Preparedness and Response Policy, which the Biden administration created. Trump’s foreign policy during his time in office often undermined global cooperation when it was needed most, most notably pulling the US out of 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-century global health crisis. (The Biden administration later reversed 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 take the U.S. out of the WHO again will withdraw.

Read more: The global system for distributing Mpox Shots is broken. Here’s how to fix this

It is difficult to think of an action more destructive to public health at home and abroad than the US cutting ties with the WHO. There is no other organization that has the same legitimacy, the same power to convene 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 WHO on a wide range of health challenges, including cancer prevention and polio eradication – work that would cause major harm if Trump were to withdraw from the fight. US out of WHO.

If Trump is re-elected, we can expect less involvement in global health institutions and more emphasis on going it alone: ​​a strategy that makes 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 face pandemics alone. An outbreak anywhere can become an outbreak everywhere unless countries work together. Unlike Trump, Harris supports strengthening global institutions such as the WHO and promoting partnerships to improve global health, recognizing that infectious diseases know no borders.

A crucial moment for climate leadership

The recent devastation caused by Hurricane Helene highlights the urgency of addressing climate change as increasingly severe weather patterns threaten communities, infrastructure and livelihoods. Harris has argued for the need for rapid action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, transition to renewable energy and support vulnerable countries in their adaptation efforts. These priorities include more than just environmental management; they represent an investment in the health, safety and economic stability of our children. She also sees robust 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, creating millions of green jobs 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 questioned the scientific consensus on climate change, rolled back environmental regulations and promoted fossil fuel development. If these policies are reinstated, it would not only worsen the climate crisis but also alienate the US from key international partners making progress on climate action. A second Trump term would likely lead to more environmental rollbacks 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 upon 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 US is the largest funder of this agenda, and its leadership is crucial. Harris has made clear that she will keep the U.S. engaged in this effort, recognizing that global development directly impacts our national security and economic prosperity. However, Trump’s past actions show a clear disregard for these international obligations, and a second term would likely lead to a further withdrawal from global development efforts.

Read more: The extreme right and extreme left meet through conspiracy theories about well-being

For middle-class families in America, these conversations are not just about abstract foreign policy. They’re about the jobs that could come from leading the world in clean energy. It’s about staying safe from global health threats by working with other countries to prepare for and respond to pandemics. And they’re about ensuring a stable global economy that benefits American workers and businesses.

Taken together, Harris’s vision of global cooperation is consistent with the urgency of transnational threats. She understands that if the US backs away from its commitments, it won’t just be millions of middle-class American families who will suffer: global health will be weakened, the risk of pandemics will increase, and climate disasters will worsen.

Diplomats and officials from around the world are nervously watching the US presidential election because they know 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 American president won’t just make decisions for America – he will 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 that choice will reverberate far beyond our borders.