By Charalampos Karouzos,
As you probably know, on January 20th 2025, just hours after taking office, President Donald Trump signed an executive order to withdraw the United States from the World Health Organization (WHO). This decision, while not entirely unexpected, has been met with widespread criticism from public health experts, who warn of its far-reaching consequences for both global and domestic health. As one of the founding members and largest financial contributors to the WHO, the U.S. departure from this vital institution marks a reckless and dangerous turn in global health policy, undermining decades of collaborative progress and jeopardizing future health security.
The WHO, established in 1948, is a cornerstone of global health cooperation, with 194 member states, and tackles the world’s most pressing health challenges, ranging from infectious diseases like Ebola, COVID-19, and Zika, to chronic conditions such as heart disease, cancer, and diabetes. The organization’s achievements have been monumental: it eradicated smallpox, reduced global polio cases by 99%, and helped eliminate trachoma, a leading cause of blindness in several countries. In additon to these, the WHO also coordinates efforts to improve maternal and child health, combat malnutrition, and enhance pandemic preparedness, efforts that have benefited countless lives worldwide.
President Trump justified the withdrawal by citing alleged inefficiencies, failures during the COVID-19 pandemic, and an “unfair financial burden” on the U.S., which contributes about 20% of the WHO’s biennial budget of $6.8 billion. Critics of the decision, however, argue that abandoning the organization over perceived flaws is short-sighted and dangerous. As Lawrence O. Gostin, a public health law expert at Georgetown University, aptly noted, this withdrawal is not only “a grievous wound to public health” but also “an even deeper wound to American national interests and national security”.
The timing of the withdrawal is particularly concerning given the weak state of global health. Infectious diseases do not respect borders, as the COVID-19 pandemic so starkly illustrated. The WHO serves a paramount role of being the vital hub for data-sharing, enabling countries to track emerging health threats like bird flu or antimicrobial resistance well before health ministries could ever do isolated. For instance, when China identified the genetic sequence of the coronavirus in early 2020, it shared the information with the WHO, which then disseminated it globally, allowing the mass production of vaccines and facilitating wordwide research on the virus. Without the coordination provided by the WHO, the global response to such threats would be fragmented, slower, and less effective.
Domestically, the U.S. stands to lose access to critical resources and networks. Agencies like the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) rely on WHO data and partnerships to monitor and combat health threats, and the loss of this collaboration could isolate the U.S. from the global health community, making it harder to address crises both at home and abroad. Stefano Bertozzi, a professor at UC Berkeley and former director of the WHO Global Programme on AIDS, emphasized that no country can isolate itself from global health threats and still remain safe. He likened the withdrawal to abandoning the World Trade Organization or ceasing participation in international air travel standards —an act that damages not only the international system but also the withdrawing nation itself.
Beyond logistics, which have been the main argument of the newly elect US president, the decision raises pivotal ethical questions about the U.S.’s role as a global leader. Historically, the U.S. has played a central role in supporting global health initiatives, often leveraging its position within the WHO to shape policies and direct resources to critical areas. Walking away from this responsibility undermines the nation’s credibility and cedes influence to other countries, such as China, which could step in to fill the void. This shift in leadership could have profound implications for global health governance and the balance of power within international organizations.
The financial arguments presented by the Trump administration also fail to hold water when considering the broader context. The U.S. contribution to the WHO’s budget is substantial but relatively small compared to its overall federal spending. For perspective, the WHO’s biennial budget is roughly equivalent to half the annual budget of the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF). Given the organization’s critical role in addressing global health crises, the return on investment is immeasurable! Indeed, instead of withdrawing, the U.S. should focus on strengthening the WHO’s capacity to respond to future challenges.
The decision to leave the WHO also ignores the organization’s recent efforts to address its shortcomings. Criticisms of the WHO’s initial response to COVID-19, such as delays in recognizing airborne transmission, are valid. However, as Bertozzi pointed out, the solution is not to abandon the organization but to work collaboratively to improve it, both the CDC and the WHO must learn from past mistakes to better prepare for the next public health emergency.
One of the most tragic aspects of the withdrawal, and heavily underpresented by the mass media, is its potential impact on vulnerable populations. The WHO is often the only support for countries with fragile health systems, in our interconnected world. One can not fail to acknoledge that during the HIV/AIDS pandemic, the organization played a critical role in establishing national AIDS programs in Africa, helping countries build the infrastructure needed to combat the disease. Today, similar efforts are underway to combat malnutrition, provide vaccines, and deliver healthcare to war-torn regions like Gaza. The loss of U.S. funding could jeopardize these initiatives, leaving millions without access to life-saving interventions.
As the world faces mounting health challenges, ranging from climate change-induced diseases to the threat of antimicrobial resistance, global cooperation is more essential than ever. The U.S. withdrawal from the WHO represents a step backward, not only for global health but for the principles of solidarity and shared responsibility that underpin it. If the U.S. truly wants to lead on health, it must remain engaged, not retreat into isolation.
The decision to leave the WHO is not just a political statement; it is a gamble with the health of billions. It threatens to unravel decades of progress and leaves both the U.S. and the world more vulnerable to future crises. In an interconnected world, health security is a shared endeavor, and abandoning the institutions that make it possible is nothing short of reckless. As Bertozzi aptly concluded, “It’ll take a disaster to bring the U.S. back into the fold. Let’s hope we don’t have to wait for that tragedy to realize the importance of staying connected.”
Reference
- Trump Withdraws U.S. From World Health Organization. New York Times. Available here
- WITHDRAWING THE UNITED STATES FROM THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION. White House. Available here
- U.S. withdrawal from WHO could bring tragedy at home and abroad. Berkeley Public Health. Available here
