The United States has formally ended its association with the World Health Organization (WHO), marking a significant shift in global health diplomacy. This decision, which was years in the making, culminated with President Donald Trump signing an executive order to withdraw from the UN agency that has historically been one of the largest contributors to its budget. The move, fueled by accusations of the WHO’s mishandling of the COVID-19 pandemic and political influence from member states, leaves a massive gap in the WHO’s operations, particularly in funding and expertise.
The US Withdrawal: Key Reasons and Reactions
The withdrawal, announced in mid-2020, became official following the cessation of the US’s payments to the organization, including arrears for 2024 and 2025. The US Department of Health and Human Services justified the decision by claiming the WHO’s failure to reform, its alleged bias toward China, and its mishandling of the pandemic response. These criticisms came on the heels of a broader dispute over the WHO’s perceived failure to act swiftly and decisively when the pandemic began spreading in early 2020.
In an official statement, the WHO rejected these claims, with Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus asserting that the US’s exit was a loss for both the country and the world. According to the WHO, it has played a pivotal role in addressing global health crises, including eradicating polio, combating HIV/AIDS, improving maternal mortality rates, and leading efforts to control tobacco use worldwide.
Tedros further stressed the organization’s collaborative efforts to create an international pandemic treaty aimed at preventing future health emergencies and ensuring fair access to vaccines and treatments. While the treaty has been agreed upon by all WHO member states, the United States, under the Trump administration, chose not to participate, further straining relations between Washington and the global health body.
Impact on WHO’s Operations and Funding
The US has traditionally been one of the largest donors to the WHO, contributing billions of dollars annually to fund the agency’s initiatives. With the US now cutting off its contributions, the WHO faces a substantial financial setback. The country’s withdrawal from the global health body has already resulted in significant job losses and operational disruptions at the organization’s headquarters in Geneva.
Despite the US’s refusal to settle its arrears—estimated at around $260 million—the WHO remains committed to continuing its work, despite the financial challenges. The organization is looking to other donors to fill the gap, though it is unclear how this loss of funding will affect its ability to execute its mission, particularly in the fight against future pandemics.
US Perspective: Criticizing WHO’s Role and Approach
From Washington’s perspective, the withdrawal was a necessary step to reclaim national autonomy over health policies. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy and Secretary of State Marco Rubio jointly stated that the WHO’s actions during the COVID-19 crisis demonstrated a failure to align with the interests of the United States. In their view, the WHO’s response was not only inadequate but also politically influenced, particularly by China’s role in the initial stages of the pandemic.
The joint statement also criticized the WHO for not returning the American flag to its headquarters in Geneva, a symbolic gesture that Washington felt was representative of the organization’s disregard for the United States’ role in supporting global health initiatives.
As a result of the withdrawal, the US has terminated all official engagement with the WHO, including the recall of US personnel and contractors stationed at the agency’s offices worldwide. In the absence of the WHO, the US has indicated that it will engage in bilateral agreements with other countries to continue critical work on disease surveillance and pathogen sharing, though details of these partnerships remain scarce.
Global Health Implications: Will the US Remain Involved?
While the US will no longer participate in WHO-led initiatives, it has not completely severed its ties to global health efforts. The Trump administration’s strategy focused on working with non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and faith-based groups to continue addressing health crises like HIV/AIDS and polio. However, questions remain about how effective this decentralized approach will be in tackling large-scale public health emergencies, particularly those that require international cooperation.
The lack of US involvement in the WHO’s international vaccination initiatives and disease prevention efforts could undermine global health security, especially as the world faces future pandemics. The United States had long been a key player in global vaccine development and distribution, and its withdrawal from the WHO could delay efforts to create equitable systems for vaccine access in low- and middle-income countries.
Criticism of the US’s Response to COVID-19
One of the most glaring criticisms of the US’s handling of the COVID-19 pandemic is its delayed response to guidance from the WHO. Despite the WHO’s recommendations on mask-wearing, social distancing, and lockdown measures, many state and local governments in the US adopted a fragmented approach, with significant political disagreements affecting the nationwide response.
Drew Altman, a former US public health official, argued that the lack of a unified national strategy, compounded by political polarization, contributed significantly to the high death toll in the United States. In his view, the failure to follow WHO guidelines, coupled with the Trump administration’s reluctance to impose comprehensive federal measures, resulted in a slow and chaotic response to the pandemic.
Research published in the US National Library of Medicine echoed these criticisms, labeling the US’s federal response as “slow and mismanaged.” This criticism has fueled the debate over the role of the WHO and whether the US should have taken a more active role in the organization, particularly given the global health crisis caused by COVID-19.
The Future of US Global Health Engagement
Looking ahead, the question remains: how will the US engage with the global health community in the absence of the WHO? While the withdrawal from the WHO limits the US’s ability to influence global health policy, it is not yet clear how the country plans to fill the void left by its absence.
Although the US has indicated that it will continue to engage in bilateral health partnerships, the lack of multilateral collaboration could hinder the effectiveness of future public health responses. The WHO, with its established networks and global reach, is uniquely positioned to lead efforts to prevent future pandemics and address other global health threats.
The upcoming WHO board meeting, scheduled for February 2026, will likely address the impact of the US withdrawal and outline the organization’s future direction. In the meantime, the global health community will have to adapt to the absence of the US’s leadership within the WHO framework.
The Long-Term Effects of the US Exit
The US’s official departure from the World Health Organization marks a pivotal moment in the history of global health cooperation. While the decision may have been driven by political motivations and frustration with the WHO’s pandemic response, the broader implications for global health governance remain uncertain. With the US now focusing on bilateral agreements and partnerships, it is unclear how the international community will manage health emergencies moving forward without the active involvement of one of the world’s largest and most influential nations.
As the world grapples with the ongoing effects of the COVID-19 pandemic and prepares for future health threats, the absence of the US from the WHO will undoubtedly shape the future of global health diplomacy. Only time will tell whether the WHO can maintain its leadership role in global health without the US’s financial and political support.
