Donald Trump’s decision to withdraw the United States from the World Health Organization (WHO), formalized through an executive order signed early in his presidency, has sparked significant debate and raised concerns about its implications for global health. The move, criticized by public health experts and international institutions alike, underscores broader political, financial, and ideological tensions shaping U.S. foreign policy under Trump. This analysis delves into the motivations behind the decision, the role of WHO in global health, and the potential consequences of the U.S. withdrawal.
Understanding the WHO’s Mission and Achievements
The World Health Organization was established in 1948 as a specialized agency of the United Nations, emerging from the global devastation of World War II. Its founding principles emphasized the idea that health is a universal right and that inequities in healthcare systems represent a collective danger to humanity. Over the decades, WHO has worked to coordinate international health responses, promote universal health coverage, and combat diseases ranging from smallpox to HIV/AIDS.
One of WHO’s crowning achievements was the eradication of smallpox. In 1967, the agency embarked on an ambitious campaign to eliminate the disease. Through widespread vaccination and global cooperation—even during the Cold War—the last known case of smallpox was reported in Somalia in 1977, with the disease officially declared eradicated by 1980. This success highlighted WHO’s potential as a unifying force in addressing global health challenges.
In recent years, WHO has led the fight against outbreaks like Ebola in West Africa, which claimed over 11,000 lives between 2014 and 2016. The organization facilitated vaccine development and distribution, achieving near-perfect efficacy and helping to curb the spread of the virus. Despite its achievements, WHO has faced criticism for inefficiency, bureaucracy, and over-reliance on private donors. These shortcomings have fueled skepticism, particularly among critics in the United States.
Trump’s Grievances with WHO
Donald Trump’s animosity toward WHO centers on accusations of corruption and inefficiency, compounded by perceived biases toward China. During the COVID-19 pandemic, Trump accused the organization of “severely mismanaging” the crisis and “covering up” the origins of the virus, which he claimed originated in a Wuhan laboratory. While WHO has called for greater transparency from China, Trump’s critiques overshadow the organization’s role in securing and disseminating critical information early in the pandemic, such as the genetic sequence of the virus—a key development that facilitated vaccine creation.
Trump’s focus on financial disparities further fueled his decision. The United States contributes approximately $500 million annually to WHO, compared to China’s $40 million, despite the latter’s larger population. Trump framed this disparity as emblematic of broader issues with international organizations that he viewed as exploitative and “globalist scams.”
Implications of U.S. Withdrawal
The U.S. withdrawal from WHO—a move characterized by Georgetown University public health law professor Lawrence Gostin as potentially “sowing the seeds for the next pandemic”—could have far-reaching consequences. The U.S. provides nearly 20% of WHO’s budget, supporting programs to combat tuberculosis, HIV, and polio. Without U.S. funding, these initiatives could face significant setbacks, delaying progress toward eradication goals and undermining health security worldwide.
Moreover, WHO serves as a vital platform for international cooperation during health emergencies. The organization’s coordination efforts during outbreaks enable countries to share data, allocate resources, and strategize responses. Devi Sridhar, chair of global public health at the University of Edinburgh, emphasized that the U.S. risks weakening its national security by isolating itself from such collaborative frameworks. “You can’t fight a pandemic effectively without some kind of global table where countries around the world can meet and discuss and twist arms to release data,” noted Alan Bernstein, director of the Global Health Initiative at the University of Oxford.
Reactions to Trump’s Decision
WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus expressed regret over the U.S. decision, highlighting the long history of collaboration between the two entities. “For over seven decades, WHO and the USA have saved countless lives and protected Americans and all people from health threats. Together, we ended smallpox, and together we have brought polio to the brink of eradication,” Tedros remarked.
Public health experts have warned that the withdrawal could hamper efforts to address current and future health crises. For instance, WHO’s ongoing campaigns to combat polio and tuberculosis rely heavily on U.S. contributions. A sudden funding gap could stall these efforts, potentially leading to resurgences of preventable diseases.
Broader Context and Future Prospects
Trump’s decision to withdraw the U.S. from WHO reflects broader themes in his administration’s foreign policy: skepticism of multilateralism, a preference for bilateral negotiations, and a focus on perceived financial inequities. These tendencies resonate with Trump’s base, many of whom view international institutions as undermining U.S. sovereignty and interests.
Despite the executive order, the withdrawal process is not immediate. It takes a full year to formally exit WHO, providing a window for potential reversals. President Joe Biden’s swift action to rejoin WHO in 2021 illustrates the importance of U.S. participation in the organization. However, Trump’s renewed efforts signal a more determined approach, with calls to expedite the withdrawal and halt funding “with all practicable speed.”
The decision to withdraw the U.S. from WHO represents a critical juncture for global health governance. While Trump’s critiques of inefficiency and financial disparities warrant consideration, the benefits of continued engagement outweigh the costs of isolation. WHO’s ability to address transnational health threats depends on robust support from member states, particularly influential contributors like the United States. As the world faces complex challenges—from emerging pandemics to persistent health inequities—collaboration remains essential. The U.S. must carefully weigh the long-term implications of its choices, recognizing that health security is a shared responsibility in an interconnected world.
