President Donald Trump utilized one of the many executive actions he issued upon returning to the White House to initiate the process of withdrawing the United States from the World Health Organization for the second time in less than five years. This move, which has raised concerns among scientists, could potentially undo the progress made in combating diseases such as AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis over the years. Experts warn that departing from the WHO could weaken global defenses against new outbreaks that have the potential to trigger pandemics.
During his second term’s inaugural Oval Office appearance, Trump signed an executive order outlining the beginning of the withdrawal process. The order involves pausing the future allocation of U.S. government funds to the organization, recalling and reassigning federal personnel and contractors linked to the WHO, and urging officials to identify credible and transparent U.S. and international partners to take over essential activities previously carried out by the organization.
This is not the first instance of Trump attempting to cut ties with the WHO. In July 2020, following WHO’s declaration of COVID-19 as a pandemic and amidst a global surge in cases, Trump’s administration officially notified U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres of the U.S.’s intention to withdraw from the organization, halting funding. President Joe Biden reversed this decision on his first day in office in January 2021, only for Trump to reinstate it upon his return to the White House.
Dr. Tom Frieden, president and CEO of Resolve to Save Lives, expressed concern over Trump’s action, stating that withdrawing from the WHO would jeopardize global health security and diminish America’s leadership role in global health initiatives. Frieden emphasized the importance of engagement over abandonment for real reform and stressed that walking away from the WHO weakens America’s influence and heightens the risk of a severe pandemic.
The WHO, as the United Nations’ specialized health agency, is tasked with coordinating global responses to health threats like smallpox, Ebola, and polio, providing aid to low-income countries, distributing vital vaccines, supplies, and treatments, and establishing guidelines for numerous health issues, including mental health and cancer. Lawrence Gostin, director of the WHO Collaborating Center on Global Health Law at Georgetown University, highlighted the detrimental impact a U.S. withdrawal would have on global health efforts, particularly in surveillance and epidemic response, potentially leading to uncontrolled disease outbreaks and pandemics.
While Trump has the authority to withdraw the U.S. from the WHO, congressional approval and fulfilling financial obligations for the current fiscal year are necessary. The U.S. became a member of the WHO through a 1948 joint resolution passed by Congress, supported by subsequent administrations.
In a significant development, the United States has announced its intention to provide a one-year notice period if it chooses to withdraw from the World Health Organization (WHO). This decision carries profound implications for the global health landscape, particularly as the U.S. has historically stood as one of WHO’s major benefactors, extending not only substantial financial contributions ranging from hundreds of millions to billions of dollars annually but also deploying a considerable number of specialized public health experts to support the organization’s mission.
Over the past decade, the U.S. has allocated substantial funding, ranging from $160 million to $815 million per year, towards WHO’s operations. Considering WHO’s annual budget falls within the $2 billion to $3 billion range, the potential loss of U.S. financial support could severely impact various critical global health initiatives. These initiatives include endeavors such as the global campaign to eradicate polio, vital maternal and child health programs, and crucial research aimed at identifying and combatting emerging viral threats.
The repercussions of a U.S. withdrawal would reverberate beyond WHO itself, affecting key American agencies collaborating with the organization, notably the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Departing from WHO would not only isolate the U.S. from collaborative ventures orchestrated by the organization, such as formulating annual influenza vaccine compositions and coordinating responses to countries grappling with severe epidemics, but also impede American scientists’ access to essential genetic databases maintained by WHO. This limitation could potentially impede progress in developing vaccines and treatments for pressing global health challenges.
The decision to withdraw from WHO has been attributed to President Trump’s concerns regarding what he perceives as corruption within the organization and its alleged alignment with corporate interests and China. Trump has underscored the disparity in financial contributions between the U.S. and China to WHO, intensifying his critique by asserting that China exerts undue influence over the U.N. health agency. The President’s stance reflects his broader skepticism towards multilateral institutions and a desire to assert American dominance in international health governance.
Notably, Trump’s administration has accused WHO of colluding with China to conceal critical information concerning the initial spread of the coronavirus pandemic, thus complicating efforts to contain the crisis effectively. This claim, coupled with broader criticisms of WHO’s handling of the pandemic, has fueled the administration’s decision to distance the U.S. from the organization.
In response to these developments, WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus emphasized the importance of collaboration and expressed readiness to engage constructively with the U.S. Tedros highlighted the positive history of partnership between WHO and the U.S., stressing the interconnected nature of global health security. He cited past instances, such as the Ebola outbreak in the Democratic Republic of Congo, where WHO and its partners played a pivotal role in containing the spread of the virus despite limited American involvement.
As the U.S. contemplates its future relationship with WHO, the global health community remains on edge, grappling with
