Staff unrest at the World Health Organization’s Geneva headquarters reached a new milestone this week, as the WHO Staff Association (HQSA) adopted three resolutions challenging the fairness and legitimacy of the Organization’s ongoing restructuring process, which has already led to post abolitions, reassignments, and widespread anxiety.

In two meetings, Monday and Friday, attended by some 800 members of Geneva’s WHO staff, members expressed a vote of “no confidence” in the downsizing process, endorsing demands for greater transparency.  Key components of the demands call upon WHO senior management to:

• Disclose all criteria and decision-making logic used in departmental staff cuts, including pre- and post department structures;
• Freeze abolitions and recruitments tied to the restructuring pending independent review;
• Launch an independent review within four weeks with meaningful staff participation; 
• Issue a savings and impact statement showing what has been cut, what has been protected, and where further efficiencies are expected.
• Report corrective actions not just to staff but also to Member States.

WHO is in the process of eliminating some 600 jobs at its Geneva headquarters, where nearly  2,800 people were employed as of June 2025, as part of a restructuring triggered by the withdrawal of United States funding for the global health agency in January. The withdrawal of the US, WHO’s largest donor, has left a massive $1.7 billion hole in the upcoming 2026-2027 budget cycle. WHO’s worldwide workforce is set to be trimmed by about  20% down to 7,525 staff from 9,463 as of December 2024.

Vote of No Confidence

The Friday meeting of the “Extraordinary General Assembly” (EGA) carried a motion of no confidence in the prioritization exercise and review process (ARC) of the cutbacks, citing widespread reports from staff, HR insiders, and even some directors that the process was “fundamentally unfair and flawed,” with evidence of both of inconsistencies as well as allegations that the abolition of posts, in some cases, was used as a retaliatory measure against staff who had previously acted as whistleblowers. 

The final text  sidestepped criticism of elected Staff Association representatives themselves, who have also come under fire for allegedly failing to defend staff interests more assertively throughout the restructuring process, which began at staff level in June.  

Freeze on Abolitions and Recruitment

Another measure approved called on the WHO administration to temporarily freeze further post abolitions/discontinuations and new recruitments directly linked to the prioritization exercise “until completion of an independent review” within four weeks time. Supporters argued this measure was essential to prevent further damage before an independent review could be conducted, overriding concerns by some critics that freezing action indefinitely could worsen WHO’s financial crisis and obstruct urgent recruitment.

Independent Review

Finally, the Staff Association called upon WHO management to urgently establish an independent review of the process and its outcomes, with direct engagement of staff, to document issues of concern and present proposed corrective actions to staff, administration and Member States.

The resolution calls for a tight, four-week deadline for  the review, which could be conducted by an external body such as the International Labour Organization, which maintains a judicial process for individual staff-administration disputes, or  by an internal panel with staff-elected members, insiders suggested.

A fourth resolution, which would have authorized collective legal action challenging the restructuring, was deferred due to the fact that collective staff appeals have limited standing before the ILO Administrative Tribunal, whose purview mainly involves the review of individual staff-management disputes. 

Broader Implications

Together, the Assembly resolutions have poised  the Staff Association to play a more assertive role in the WHO downsizing process.  However,  it remains to be seen how WHO’s senior management might respond to demands by the group, which has never gone on strike and typically remained in the shadows of major WHO management moves.  Health Policy Watch could not reach a WHO spokesperson by the time of publication.  

For WHO, already facing a US$1.7 billion budget shortfall after the withdrawal of major donor funding, the challenge is acute. Leadership must balance cost-cutting imperatives with credibility, fairness, and staff morale. Headquartered in Geneva, WHO’s staff there is in the eye of the storm. 

A Call for Deeper Reform

Speaking to Health Policy Watch on condition of anonymity, staff members stressed that the criticism over the downsizing goes beyond budgetary pressures.

The process has exposed patterns of favoritism that risk creating an opaque, top-heavy structure that sacrifices more vulnerable junior and temporary staff disproportionately.

The process has also exposed structural gaps in WHO’s internal justice system and the absence of a truly independent mechanism to hold senior leadership accountable. 

“Moving forward, real accountability requires strengthening the internal justice system, with clear protections against retaliation for staff who speak out,” one staff member said. “This is not just an HR quarrel—it is a governance crisis,” echoed another staff member.

 “WHO staff are international civil servants, bound by an oath to act solely in the Organization’s interest, and management is bound to transparent, rule-based administration confirmed by the Executive Board. 

“When prioritization and realignment sever core public health functions without clear criteria; when decision review files, organigrams, and rationales are withheld; when decisions are perceived to be personalized rather than principled, the problem isn’t morale—it’s legality and legitimacy.”

Said another: “By adopting these resolutions, staff have sent a unified signal: austerity cannot override fairness, transparency, and due process. For an organization tasked with setting global standards, staff reminded management that those standards must begin at home.

“The coming four weeks will be decisive. If leadership implements the freeze, commissions a credible independent review, and engages staff meaningfully, trust may be restored. If not, the Organization risks deepening mistrust — with consequences not just for staff morale, but for the credibility of WHO’s governance itself.”

Image Credits: WHO .