The United States and the World Health Organization: The Debate Over Trump's Decision to Withdraw

In a landmark decision, President Donald Trump has signed an executive order to withdraw the United States from the World Health Organization (WHO), a move that has sparked global debate. This step, announced shortly after his inauguration, has far-reaching implications for global health governance, raising questions about its rationale, consequences, and the future of multilateral health initiatives.

The WHO: A Pillar of Global Health

Since its establishment in 1948, the WHO has served as a cornerstone of global health efforts, working toward the goal of "the attainment by all peoples of the highest possible level of health." Over the decades, the organization has been pivotal in combating pandemics, promoting health equity, and responding to emergencies worldwide.

One of the WHO’s greatest achievements was the eradication of smallpox in 1980—a milestone in global health. The organization has also led international responses to crises such as the Ebola outbreak in West Africa (2014–2016), coordinating vaccine development and disease control measures.

According to Francois Balloux, Director of the Genetics Institute at University College London, "The upward trend in global life expectancy is a testament to the often-overlooked work of the WHO."

However, the WHO has not been without its critics. Concerns about inefficiency, political influence, and dependence on private donors have led to calls for reform. Despite these challenges, the WHO remains an indispensable player in global health, operating in over 150 countries to combat diseases, improve healthcare systems, and respond to health emergencies.

Trump’s Criticisms of the WHO

President Trump has consistently criticized the WHO, accusing it of mismanaging the COVID-19 pandemic and favoring China. He has described the organization as "a corrupt globalist scam" and accused it of covering up the early spread of the virus to shield China’s reputation.

Trump has also raised concerns about financial disparities, noting that the U.S. contributes approximately $500 million annually to the WHO, compared to China’s $40 million. "American taxpayers are not getting value for their money," Trump asserted, framing the withdrawal as a step toward ensuring accountability.

While Trump’s concerns resonate with some experts, others argue that his decision disregards the WHO’s vital role.

Devi Sridhar, Chair of Global Public Health at the University of Edinburgh, highlights the interconnected nature of global health, stating, "The U.S. would weaken its national security imperatives by withdrawing from the WHO, as it would lose critical channels for outbreak information and coordination."

Consequences of U.S. Withdrawal

The United States has historically been the largest donor to the WHO, contributing roughly 20% of its budget. A sudden withdrawal could have dire consequences for ongoing health initiatives, including polio eradication, tuberculosis control, and HIV prevention.

Lawrence Gostin, a public health law professor at Georgetown University, warns that the withdrawal could "sow the seeds for the next pandemic." Reduced funding and diminished U.S. leadership could delay responses to emerging health threats, jeopardizing global and domestic security.

WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus echoed this sentiment, stating, "For over seven decades, WHO and the USA have saved countless lives and protected people from health threats."

The decision also raises broader questions about the future of multilateralism in health governance. The WHO’s constitution acknowledges that "unequal development" in health systems poses a "common danger." By stepping away, the U.S. risks undermining collective efforts to address shared health challenges.

The Role of China in Global Health Governance

China's position in global health has grown significantly in recent years, and its relationship with the WHO has become a focal point of international scrutiny. As a major player in global health, China has invested heavily in pandemic preparedness and vaccine distribution. The Belt and Road Initiative includes a "Health Silk Road," aiming to bolster healthcare infrastructure in developing countries.

Critics argue that China's influence in the WHO could undermine its impartiality. However, proponents highlight China's contributions to global health, including its rapid development of vaccines and the provision of medical supplies to low-income nations during the COVID-19 pandemic.

If the U.S. continues to distance itself from the WHO, China could fill the leadership void, reshaping global health governance to align with its strategic interests. As Dr. Sridhar points out, "Global health is no longer just about health—it’s about geopolitics and influence."

What Happens if WHO is Left Behind?

Several debatable questions emerge:

• Will the U.S. isolate itself in healthcare, or will it become an unparalleled powerhouse capable of independently dominating global health with advanced technology?
• Can global health governance thrive without U.S. leadership?
• Will China's increasing influence in the WHO foster innovation or lead to concerns over transparency and accountability?
• How can nations strike a balance between nationalism and globalism in addressing shared health challenges?

If the U.S. withdraws entirely, some experts suggest it might focus on bilateral agreements and private-sector partnerships, leveraging its technological edge to dominate healthcare innovation. However, without the WHO, the U.S. risks losing access to critical networks for disease surveillance and outbreak coordination. In contrast, China could solidify its role as a global health leader, influencing policy and resource allocation within the WHO.

Striking a Balance Between Accountability and Cooperation

The U.S. decision to withdraw from the WHO reflects a broader tension between nationalism and globalism. While concerns about accountability and financial equity are legitimate, they must be balanced against the risks of diminished international cooperation in addressing global health challenges.

As Thomas Parran, the U.S. Surgeon General at the time of the WHO’s founding, remarked, the agency is "more than a health organization; it is a powerful instrument forged for peace."

In an interconnected world, the health of one nation is inseparable from the health of others. The U.S. decision to disengage from the WHO could have profound implications—not just for global health but for America’s own security and well-being.

References

1. WHO Constitution. (1948). World Health Organization.
2. Ghebreyesus, T. A. (2025). "Statement on U.S. Withdrawal." World Health Organization.
3. www.cbsnews.com
4. www.wenewsenglish.com
5. CNN World