In a sweeping policy shift, President Donald Trump has announced the United States will begin the process of withdrawing from the World Health Organization (WHO), fulfilling a campaign promise to reevaluate the country’s involvement in international institutions. The formal decision to sever ties with the WHO comes just days after Trump’s inauguration and marks a significant pivot from his first term’s actions, which had already seen a suspension of U.S. funding to the global health body.
Trump’s frustration with the WHO has been longstanding, particularly in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. He has repeatedly criticized the organization for what he perceives as an inadequate and delayed response to the crisis, as well as its perceived alignment with China. This move to exit the WHO aligns with Trump’s broader “America First” agenda, which prioritizes national interests over multilateral agreements.
Under the terms of U.S. membership, the withdrawal process will take a year to complete, a timeline that reflects the provisions in the 1948 agreement when the United States first joined the WHO. Trump’s previous efforts to withdraw from the organization were reversed when President Joe Biden took office in 2021, but now the former president is determined to pursue the exit once more.
The announcement has far-reaching consequences for both the WHO and the U.S. itself. As the largest financial contributor to the WHO, the U.S. provided over $1.28 billion in funding during the 2022-2023 period. Losing the U.S. as a member would create a significant financial gap for the organization, which relies heavily on U.S. support to fund its global health initiatives, including emergency responses to pandemics and disease outbreaks.
Experts have voiced concerns about the negative impact of the withdrawal on U.S. national interests. Lawrence Gostin, a professor at Georgetown University and expert in global health law, argued that the decision would harm U.S. agencies like the CDC and the NIH, leaving them with limited access to crucial health data and less influence in setting international health standards. “This is a grave mistake for U.S. national security,” he warned.
Critics also fear the power vacuum left by the U.S. withdrawal could be exploited by other global players, such as China and Russia, potentially reshaping the WHO in ways that could undermine American influence. Elisha Dunn-Georgiou, president of the Global Health Council, cautioned that the absence of the U.S. at the WHO’s decision-making table could reduce its ability to hold other countries accountable during global health crises, such as pandemics.
However, some advocates of the withdrawal argue that the U.S. can still play a leadership role in global health outside of the WHO. Brett Schaefer, a research fellow at the Heritage Foundation, noted that other organizations such as GAVI, The Vaccine Alliance, and the Global Fund have successfully operated outside of the WHO’s framework, suggesting that the U.S. could pursue alternative avenues to address global health challenges.
As the U.S. edges closer to its formal exit from the WHO, the international community is left to consider how this move will reshape the future of global health governance and America’s role in addressing health crises worldwide.
