A new health cooperation framework signed between Kenya and the United States has ignited significant debate and controversy, leading to a legal challenge by the Consumers Federation of Kenya (Cofek). The agreement, signed on December 4, 2025, by Kenya’s Musalia Mudavadi and the US’s Marco Rubio, is intended to replace older aid models and inject substantial funding into Kenya’s health system.
Advertisement
However, critics argue that the 37-page document contains clauses that compromise national sovereignty, threaten data privacy, and create an unbalanced financial burden for Kenya. This post breaks down the key concerns and commitments outlined in the US-Kenya Health Cooperation Framework (the Framework).
The Context: Why the Deal Was Signed
For the United States
The Framework comes as the US shifts its foreign assistance model away from traditional aid structures like USAID. The agreement establishes a direct government-to-government line, allowing US agencies to fund, guide, and monitor programs—including HIV, malaria, TB, and vaccine response—without the intermediaries of NGOs. This move allows the US to maintain its presence and influence in a key African partner, offering a modernized model for bilateral cooperation.
For Kenya
Kenya’s government views the deal as a necessary lifeline. With the exit of previous US aid mechanisms, many health projects were struggling.
-
Financial Injection: The Framework promises approximately $2.5 billion USD from the US over five years.
-
Kenya’s Commitment: Kenya pledges to contribute roughly $850 million USD on its side.
-
Program Support: The funds are crucial for sustaining vital health programs, maintaining hospital services, and securing the jobs of thousands of health workers.
While the deal offers significant immediate benefits, the terms and long-term implications are what have drawn intense scrutiny.
Key Red Flags and Controversial Clauses
Critics and those like Cofek are raising serious questions based on specific clauses within the Framework.
1. Sovereignty and Outbreak Reporting: The “7-1-7 Rule.”
(Referenced on pages 5 and 24 of the Framework)
The agreement introduces the 7-1-7 Rule for disease surveillance:
-
A new disease must be noticed within 7 days.
-
The US must be informed within 1 day after notice.
-
Kenya must initiate a response within the next 7 days.
-
The Concern: Critics argue that the requirement to inform the US almost immediately, potentially before the situation is fully understood by Kenyan authorities, compromises national health security and hands over sensitive intelligence too quickly.
2. Emergency Medical Approvals
(Referenced on page 6 of the Framework)
A highly controversial clause states that if the US approves a medical product (drug, vaccine, or testing kit) for emergency use, Kenya agrees that this approval is sufficient for it to be used in Kenya during an outbreak.
-
The Concern: This hands over a critical aspect of regulatory sovereignty. During a health crisis, decisions are often rushed. Kenyans question why their own Pharmacy and Poisons Board (PPB) would be bypassed, arguing that if something goes wrong, the liability will fall solely on the Kenyan Ministry of Health, not the US FDA.
3. One-Sided Audit Powers
(Referenced on pages 24, 25, and 26, specifically sections 5.2-5.4)
The Framework grants the US sweeping authority to audit almost every aspect of Kenya’s health system linked to the partnership:
-
Kenya is required to provide any information needed for these audits.
-
The US can randomly select up to 5% of Kenya’s health facilities to inspect.
-
The Concern: While audits are standard for accountability, the power is one-sided. Kenya does not have a reciprocal right to audit US systems, including how shared data is used, accessed, or analyzed on the US side. This lack of equal transparency is seen as a major imbalance in a supposed partnership.
4. Unclear Data and Specimen Protection
(Referenced on page 28, paragraph 8.1)
Kenya agrees to the continued sharing of sensitive materials, including:
-
Test samples and genetic sequencing results.
Advertisement
-
Pathogen data and outbreak patterns.
-
The Concern: The agreement is criticized for failing to clearly spell out how this sensitive data will be protected once it leaves Kenyan hands. There are no clear rules on storage duration, who can access it on the US side, or what happens if Kenya wishes to stop sharing. Critics stress that this type of data—which reveals national vulnerabilities and biological patterns—should be guarded with explicit, mutual protection protocols.
5. Digital Health Systems Control
(Referenced on pages 13 and 16)
Kenya commits to building advanced digital health infrastructure, including a national health cloud, digital hospital systems, outbreak dashboards, and AI-powered prediction tools, with US assistance.
-
The Concern: While modernization is welcome, the Framework is vague on who controls the back end and the master keys of this integrated digital ecosystem. Without clear assurances of sovereign control over the infrastructure, there is a fear that Kenya could become dependent on a system it did not design and does not fully manage, granting the partner a powerful window into the entire health landscape.
6. Shifting Financial Burden and Increasing Wage Bill
(Referenced on page 32, Appendix 1, and page 35, Appendix 3)
The Framework reveals an unbalanced financial trajectory:
-
US Funding Decreases: The US contribution drops significantly from approximately $414 million in 2026 to around $161 million by 2030 (less than half).
-
Kenya’s Burden Increases: Kenya commits to sharply increasing its health budget by tens of billions of Kenyan shillings each year.
-
Consequence of Failure: The US reserves the right to reduce or stop its funding with just 9 months’ notice if Kenya fails to meet its budget increase commitment (page 26, paragraph 6.11).
-
Worker Absorption: The deal requires Kenya to fully absorb the salaries of thousands of health workers currently supported by the US into the government payroll by June 30, 2028. This includes over 1,200 nurses, 1,400 clinical officers, and thousands of other staff.
-
The Concern: This model financially traps Kenya into a system where the wage bill becomes a permanent national cost at the exact time partner funding is sharply declining, raising questions about the financial realism and sustainability.
7. Privileges and Immunities
(Referenced on page 28, paragraph 12)
This clause states that nothing in the Framework removes the protection and immunities that US officials and agencies already enjoy when working in Kenya.
-
The Concern: It confirms that while the US has audit power and access, Kenya cannot easily take legal action against US officials or agencies if things go wrong—whether with data, medical products, or outbreak decisions—creating a situation where one side carries all the risk and liability.
The Legal Challenge: Consumers Federation of Kenya (Cofek)
Cofek has filed a high-profile case against Musalia Mudavadi, Aden Duale, and the Attorney General, arguing that the deal is illegal and unconstitutional because it was signed in secrecy and threatens the rights of citizens.
-
Constitutional Violation: Cofek argues the government violated the Constitution by signing the deal without:
-
Public Participation (Article 10): The deal, a major policy decision, was signed without consulting citizens.
-
Right to Privacy (Article 31): The clause on data and specimen sharing endangers the medical information of every Kenyan.
-
Right to Information (Article 35): The public was not informed of the terms before the signing.
-
-
Key Institutions Bypassed: Cofek argues that, despite the massive implications for data privacy, institutions like the Office of the Data Protection Commissioner were not involved in the review or approval process.
What Happens Next?
The High Court will now compare the Framework’s clauses against Kenya’s Constitution and the Data Protection Act.
-
If the court agrees with Cofek, the deal could be suspended, slowing down implementation until the case is heard.
-
If the court finds the Framework unconstitutional, the entire agreement could be invalidated, forcing the government to renegotiate or restart the process with public and parliamentary oversight.
This case is seen as a constitutional moment that will set a major precedent for how the Kenyan executive handles international agreements related to sensitive areas like health, data, and technology, determining if transparency and citizen rights can be bypassed in the name of foreign partnerships.