In one of the most significant executive actions during his first hours as president, Donald Trump signed an executive order on Monday to withdraw the United States from the World Health Organization (WHO). The decision comes after years of mounting criticism from Trump regarding WHO’s handling of the COVID-19 pandemic and other international health issues. As one of the largest financial contributors to WHO, the U.S. provides about a fifth of the organization’s budget, and Trump has repeatedly accused it of inefficiency and corruption.
The withdrawal is likely to have far-reaching consequences not only for global health but for the U.S.’s role in shaping international responses to future health crises. Trump’s critics have warned that leaving WHO could weaken global health governance and sow the seeds for future pandemics, as the world’s largest economy would no longer be directly involved in the coordination of health responses on a global scale.
The World Health Organization, established in 1948, is a specialized agency of the United Nations responsible for international public health. Its mandate is to ensure that all people, regardless of their country of origin, achieve the highest attainable standard of health. Through its wide-reaching programs, WHO addresses health challenges ranging from infectious diseases to chronic conditions, working in over 150 locations worldwide.
WHO has been instrumental in the eradication of smallpox and polio and has led efforts in managing major health emergencies such as the Ebola outbreak in West Africa. Despite these successes, the agency has faced criticisms over its operations, with detractors accusing it of being inefficient, overly reliant on private donations, and influenced by political pressures from member states.
Trump’s decision to withdraw the U.S. from WHO is rooted in multiple concerns. A key reason for his discontent is the organization’s handling of the COVID-19 pandemic. Trump has accused WHO of mismanaging the early stages of the pandemic, particularly in its response to China’s initial outbreak. He has suggested that the virus originated in a laboratory in Wuhan, China, and criticized WHO for not holding China accountable for a lack of transparency.
Trump’s allegations have painted WHO as being too lenient on China, which has become a central issue in the U.S.-China rivalry. The president’s critics, however, argue that this perspective overlooks the role WHO played in gathering and sharing critical information that enabled the development of vaccines and coordinated responses to the crisis.
Beyond the pandemic, Trump has also raised concerns about the financial imbalance between the U.S. and other countries. The U.S. contributes approximately $500 million annually to WHO’s budget, far more than China, which contributes around $40 million, despite its much larger population. Trump has described this financial disparity as a “rip-off,” underscoring his view that the U.S. should not continue to fund an organization that he perceives as failing to represent American interests effectively.
The decision to withdraw the U.S. from WHO could have significant global health implications. WHO’s extensive global reach has been vital in addressing pandemics, eradicating diseases, and improving health outcomes worldwide. The U.S. has been a major player in many of WHO’s initiatives, providing funding, expertise, and leadership.
One of the most notable achievements of WHO is the eradication of smallpox, which was declared eradicated in 1980. This success was the result of unprecedented international cooperation, with both the U.S. and the Soviet Union setting aside Cold War rivalries to focus on a common health goal. Without such coordination, experts warn that global health efforts could be fragmented, making it more difficult to address future health emergencies.
The loss of U.S. participation could also slow progress on other critical health initiatives, such as the fight against polio, tuberculosis, and HIV/AIDS. Additionally, experts fear that without a strong global coordinating body like WHO, responses to future pandemics could be delayed, costing lives and resources.
Trump’s executive order triggers a year-long process to formally withdraw from the organization, during which time the U.S. will still be a member. However, the Trump administration has indicated that it will act swiftly to halt U.S. funding to WHO, potentially undermining the organization’s ability to respond to ongoing health emergencies.
Should the U.S. officially withdraw, it could severely limit WHO’s financial and political leverage, especially in the context of health crises that require rapid, global cooperation. Other nations and organizations may fill the vacuum left by the U.S., but there is no guarantee that these entities will be able to provide the same level of support or expertise.
In response, WHO officials have expressed regret over the U.S. decision, emphasizing that the agency and the U.S. have worked together for decades to save lives and improve health outcomes worldwide. The organization also noted that the U.S. benefits from WHO’s work, especially in terms of disease prevention and health security.
Trump’s decision to withdraw from WHO represents a significant turning point in U.S. foreign and health policy. While the president’s supporters argue that it’s time to prioritize American interests over global cooperation, critics warn that the move could jeopardize future efforts to combat pandemics and improve global health.
As the U.S. steps away from WHO, the global health community will have to adapt to the absence of its most influential member. How this shift will affect global health outcomes in the long term remains uncertain, but it’s clear that the consequences of this decision could resonate for years to come.
ALSO READ: Trump To Announce Up To $500 Billion In AI Infrastructure Investments From Private Sector
