Trump 2.0's WHO Exit: A Threat to Global Health Security

President Donald Trump's decision to withdraw the United States from the World Health Organization (WHO) via executive order marks a seismic shift in global health diplomacy. During his first term, Trump was a vocal critic of the WHO, accusing the organization of inefficiency, mismanagement, and bias toward certain member states. While there were expectations that his administration might push for reforms within the United Nations system, the decision to unilaterally exit the WHO—a move effective within 12 months—comes as a shock to me and many of my colleagues in Public Health.

This withdrawal halts U.S. financial contributions, which currently account for approximately 18% of the WHO's budget. Trump has argued that the U.S. shoulders an unfair financial burden compared to nations like China, but this decision raises critical questions about the future of global health. Can the world afford such fragmentation in a time of unprecedented challenges?

The Case Against Exit

We strongly condemn this decision, as no viable alternatives exist to replace the WHO's role in global health. The world is already grappling with rising outbreaks, epidemics, and pandemics caused by emerging and reemerging infections. Additionally, factors like climate change, environmental degradation, and widening socioeconomic inequalities are exacerbating global health crises, leading to higher rates of morbidity and mortality.

This is a moment that calls for unity, not division. The famous adage, "No one is safe until everyone is safe," rings especially true in public health. Turning away from global institutions like the WHO risks leaving vulnerable populations in the Global South to fend for themselves, with dire consequences for everyone. Infectious diseases know no borders, and neglecting their control at the source jeopardizes even the most developed nations, including the U.S.

The Risk to U.S. Public Health

Ironically, this decision contradicts President Trump's own promises during his inaugural speech, where he declared, "We will end the chronic disease epidemic and keep our children safe, healthy, and disease-free." Global health challenges cannot be tackled in isolation. Collaboration with international partners is essential to address outbreaks before they escalate into pandemics.

?

The U.S. has long been a leader in global health, leveraging its scientific, financial, and logistical resources to strengthen health systems worldwide. By withdrawing from the WHO, it risks ceding this leadership role while creating gaps in global disease surveillance, vaccination campaigns, and emergency response efforts. Such gaps will not only harm other nations but will inevitably impact the health and safety of U.S. citizens.

Building Bridges, Not Walls

Global health demands a collaborative approach. The Trump administration's decision to exit the WHO risks exacerbating problems until they become nearly impossible to manage. Rather than abandoning global institutions, the U.S. should work toward reforming and strengthening them.

The WHO is not without its flaws, but abandoning it entirely without an alternative framework is short-sighted and dangerous. As pandemics like COVID-19 have shown, the world's health is interconnected. No country, no matter how powerful, can tackle these challenges alone.

This decision underscores the need for unity and cooperation in addressing the health challenges of our time. The U.S. must reconsider its stance, recognizing that global health is a shared responsibility. If we fail to act collectively, we risk a future where preventable diseases and health crises spiral out of control, impacting lives and economies worldwide.