Opinion>Opinions - Healthcare

The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the view of The Hill

An ancient disease is making a comeback, and every American should be concerned

Comments:

by Mark Green and William Steiger, opinion contributors - 04/26/26 12:00 PM ET

Comments:

Link copied

by Mark Green and William Steiger, opinion contributors - 04/26/26 12:00 PM ET

Comments:

Link copied

This 2014 photo made available by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shows a feeding female Anopheles funestus mosquito. The species is a known vector for malaria. (James Gathany/CDC via AP)

Since its launch in 2005, the U.S. President’s Malaria Initiative has been one of the most effective programs the U.S. government runs overseas. Working alongside partners like the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, it has helped cut death rates from malaria in supported countries by nearly half.

These efforts have prevented more than 2 billion cases of malaria and saved 14 million lives — most of them children. In doing so, it stands as a clear demonstration of American leadership and reinforces the United States’ reputation as a reliable partner committed to saving lives and strengthening global health security.

But data shows progress is slowing in some parts of the world because the disease itself is evolving. Mosquitoes are adapting to the tools we have used for decades, and the drugs and insecticides that once worked are losing their edge. Malaria is now the leading killer of children in many African countries.

A renewed emphasis on fighting malaria should be central to the Trump administration’s America First Global Health Strategy. When infectious diseases come roaring back, they don’t just stay “over there.” They threaten our economic and national security here in the U.S.

The president’s strategy promises a disciplined approach to global health aid, rightly prioritizing areas where the U.S. holds a distinct advantage — particularly through American innovation — rather than attempting to do everything everywhere. Malaria is well-suited to this vision.

Breakthrough technologies developed and manufactured in the U.S. have the potential to reduce the transmission of malaria sharply if deployed at scale. New spatial repellents from SC Johnson, for example, can protect families without requiring constant compliance. Rapid diagnostics enable earlier treatment, while advanced vector-control methods and new medicines aim to outpace insecticide and drug resistance. Malaria vaccines being introduced through global immunization partnerships can reduce severe disease and child mortality further when combined with bed nets and preventive treatments.

None of these tactics is a silver bullet. But when used together, they give us a real shot at wiping out malaria. And this isn’t just about doing the right thing. It’s about doing the smart thing, for us and affected communities, while putting countries on a path to self-reliance rather than permanent dependency.

Healthier countries are more stable. They are better trading partners. Their economies grow instead of collapsing under the weight of disease. That creates opportunities for American businesses and reduces the kind of instability that leads to conflict and scores of migrants showing up at our border.

And for the U.S. military, the stakes are even more clear. In tropical environments, malaria historically has sidelined more American troops than combat itself. That’s why the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research has spent decades investing in research to prevent and treat malaria. Fighting malaria isn’t charity abroad; it’s part of protecting our men and women in uniform.

There’s a reason malaria programs have had bipartisan support for so long: they work, and they’re directly in America’s interests. One practical step to strengthening this effort is restoring a clear line of accountability by transferring the powers of the U.S. Global Malaria Coordinator to a leader at the State Department. Investing a senior official with real authority over budget and strategy who is responsible for outcomes and impact — not just process — will help keep investments by American taxpayers focused and effective.

If we lose sight of our goal now, malaria will come back stronger. We’ll end up spending more money down the line, not less. And we’ll give up ground to adversaries like China, who are more than willing to step in where we pull back.

We’re closer than ever to ending malaria for good. That didn’t happen by accident. It happened because the U.S. stayed engaged, remained focused and demanded results.

Finishing the job doesn’t require a spending spree. It requires discipline, backing what works, and continuing to invest in the innovation the U.S. can bring to the table. If we do that,