In a landmark decision that has drawn both sharp criticism and robust support, former President Donald Trump took steps to withdraw the United States from the World Health Organization (WHO), a move that may have significant global health and geopolitical implications. The executive order, issued just hours after Trump’s swearing-in for a second term, marks a pivotal shift in America’s international health policy and its relationship with multilateral institutions.
Reasons Behind the Withdrawal
Mr. Trump has given several reasons why the United States has withdrawn its membership to the WHO. Among those, the agency could not do well in handling the COVID-19 pandemic according to the report. Trump complained that the WHO failed to adequately respond to the outbreak and exposed too much favoritism with China. He explained that all of these rendered the efforts in containing the virus and mitigating the outbreak, mostly in its initial stage.
That is why Trump’s argument also had two main points: The WHO has not made some vital changes at all. He also lamented the financial model of the organization and pointed out that whilst the US is expected to contribute more than any other country, China contributes significantly less yet seems to exert control.
Still, it was not the first time when Trump complained about the WHO and the organization’s actions. In his orientation yesterday he continuously asked probing questions about the efficiency and accountability of the organization. While he took steps to withdraw in 2020, his action was stopped by his successor Joe Biden in January 2021 when he became the US president. This withdrawal initiative was renewed and implemented during Trump’s second term.
Impact on Global Health
Experts have raised serious concerns about the consequences of the U.S. exiting the World Health Organization. The WHO has been instrumental in coordinating global health efforts since its inception in 1948, a mission in which the United States historically played a leading role.
One immediate concern is the loss of access to the WHO’s comprehensive global data on emerging health threats. For instance, during the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, it was the WHO that shared critical genetic sequencing of the novel coronavirus, allowing countries, including the United States, to develop diagnostics and vaccines.
The move could also hinder the CDC’s international operations. As a key partner of the WHO, the CDC relies on the organization’s infrastructure for tracking diseases like Ebola, Zika, and other epidemics. By severing ties, the United States risks creating a vacuum in global disease surveillance and response mechanisms.
Moreover, the withdrawal could disrupt ongoing projects aimed at strengthening global health security. The WHO has been at the forefront of efforts to build pandemic preparedness frameworks and promote equitable vaccine distribution. A lack of U.S. involvement may weaken these initiatives, reducing their effectiveness at a critical juncture.
Financial and Strategic Ramifications
The financial implications of the withdrawal are also significant. The WHO operates on an annual budget of approximately $6.8 billion, with the U.S. traditionally contributing the largest share. Without U.S. funding, the organization may face budgetary constraints, potentially limiting its capacity to address health crises in underprivileged regions.
Strategically, critics argue that the decision undermines America’s global leadership. Lawrence O. Gostin, a public health law expert at Georgetown University, described the withdrawal as a “grievous wound” to public health and a major setback to U.S. national interests. “The United States helped establish the WHO and has been its most significant supporter. This decision cedes influence to other nations, particularly China, at a time when global collaboration is more essential than ever,” he said.
Addressing Criticisms
The decision has ignited a heated debate. Proponents of the withdrawal argue that the move is necessary to hold international organizations accountable. They believe the WHO’s structural inefficiencies and perceived biases must be addressed, and assert that the U.S. can achieve better health outcomes through bilateral and independent initiatives.
Conversely, detractors warn of long-term repercussions. Leaving the WHO not only jeopardizes immediate pandemic response efforts but also weakens multilateral collaboration on chronic health challenges like malnutrition, maternal health, and non-communicable diseases.
Implications for the Pandemic Treaty
A controversial issue surrounding the WHO in recent years has been its work on a pandemic treaty aimed at strengthening global preparedness and response capabilities. The treaty’s provisions include mandatory surveillance of pathogens, rapid sharing of outbreak data, and the development of localized vaccine manufacturing.
Talks on the treaty encountered roadblocks, with many U.S. lawmakers perceiving its binding nature as a threat to national sovereignty. Trump’s withdrawal from the World Health Organization effectively distances the U.S. from these discussions, potentially isolating the country from a key framework for future global health governance.
A Look Back at WHO’s Legacy
Having been established in 1948 this global health organization received considerable support from the United States to name but indulge in international health disputes. From eradicating smallpox to fighting HIV/AIDS the organization has been an indispensable player in international health partnerships. Its mission is to “face the largest healthcare problems of the contemporary world and enhance quantitatively the quality of people’s lives.”
Since its formation, World Health Organization has always been involved in different war-affected areas, providing basic health care and multi-agency disaster operations for epidemics and Natural disasters. Nevertheless, the organization has been accused of such issues as bureaucracy, and slow response to health emergencies, including the 2014 Ebola outbreak in West Africa.
The Path Forward
According to American law, to pull out from the WHO it takes one year and the member is also allowed to clear his dues. But this means that the exit will not be fully felt until at least January 2026. Meanwhile, the politicians and other healthcare stakeholders will continue to spar over the future repercussions of this choice.
In other words, the trouble for the U.S., when it comes to cooperating with other countries, is in achieving its avowed policy of remolding the health systems of the world. However, the Trump administration has advocated for more of an American-centered vision, but those people claim that health threats are not isolated from countries and need cooperation.
Conclusion
The US withdrawal from World Health Organization is postmarked as one of the significant moves in the politics of global health. According to one of the creators and the largest supporter, the withdrawal of America has significant meanings and implications that reconfigure the organizational landscape of global health. Whether this decision will encourage the reforms that Trump cares about or make existing difficulties worse – nobody can say.
Given that the emergence of new threats and changes in the health landscape of the world remain relevant it is possible to identify the necessity of international cooperation. Various, yet central, questions can be asked such as: What is the future of the WHO? What is in store for the global health governance if the United States steps out of, or stays in the WHO?
