After months of campaigning on scaling back American involvement in costly international organizations, the Trump administration has fulfilled this promise through a slew of executive orders. One such order, passed on January 20th, 2025, formally withdrew the United States from the World Health Organization (WHO). This decisive move has sent ripples through international health systems and reshaped America’s role in global health governance.
The withdrawal, which Trump first threatened during the COVID-19 pandemic, is based on long-standing grievances over what his administration described as the WHO’s mishandling of the coronavirus outbreak and its deference to Chinese influence. The president contended that American taxpayers were not getting enough benefits for their considerable investment in the organization.
President Trump announced the withdrawal by stating that the funds previously allocated to the WHO would be redirected to support American health priorities. He justified the decision by criticizing the WHO’s handling of the COVID-19 pandemic and asserting that continued support for the organization did not align with U.S. interests.
As the largest financial donor to the WHO, contributing 450 million dollars annually, the U.S. withdrawal has led to immediate financial shortfalls within the organization, funds that are vital to addressing current global health crises. As a result, the WHO had to substantially rearrange its activities to cope with the lack of adequate funding, and ensure that the organization remains solvent for years to come.
This restructuring, of course, comes at a cost. The impact has been particularly hard on the developing world, with significant reductions in vaccination campaigns across sub-Saharan Africa and diminished disease surveillance in Southeast Asia. This increasing lack of bandwidth has raised concerns about the international vulnerability to future outbreaks, especially in regions that have underdeveloped healthcare systems and are still recovering from the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Additionally, the pharmaceutical industry market is exhibiting a high level of volatility. Companies with sizable investments in infrastructure related to WHO-coordinated research have seen sharp declines in share prices, while U.S. based pharmaceutical corporations saw modest gains, tightening Big Pharma’s control in U.S. markets.
The WHO has begun seeking alternative funding sources with the European Union, Japan, and Canada pledging increased contributions to partially offset the American withdrawal. However, the WHO Director-General, Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus acknowledged that certain programs will face difficult prioritization decisions in the coming months.
The History of the World Health Organization
Founded in 1948 as a specialized agency of the United Nations, the WHO has played a pivotal role in global health governance for decades. Emerging from the ashes of World War II, when international cooperation in health was more necessary than ever, the WHO was tasked with addressing pressing public health concerns, coordinating medical research, and ensuring access to healthcare for all nations, particularly those with fragile healthcare infrastructures.
One of the organization’s earliest and most significant achievements was the global eradication of smallpox in 1980, a landmark victory in modern medicine. Since then, the WHO has led numerous efforts in disease eradication, maternal and child health, vaccine distribution, and emergency response to epidemics. Through the International Health Regulations (IHR), it has provided critical frameworks for pandemic preparedness and response, setting global standards that have guided nations in containing outbreaks such as Ebola and COVID-19.
Beyond infectious diseases, the WHO has been at the forefront of combating non-communicable diseases (NCDs) such as diabetes, heart disease, and cancer. With increasing urbanization and lifestyle changes driving up rates of NCDs worldwide, the organization has promoted international guidelines on tobacco control, nutrition, and physical activity to curb preventable health risks. Moreover, the WHO’s mental health initiatives have contributed to destigmatizing mental illness and expanding access to psychological care in developing countries.
The WHO also plays a key role in humanitarian health efforts by responding to crises such as natural disasters, refugee emergencies, and armed conflicts. In war-torn nations such as Syria and Yemen, the WHO has coordinated relief efforts to ensure civilians receive essential medical care, vaccines, and nutrition support. The Emergency Medical Team’s initiative has mobilized doctors, nurses, and public health professionals to respond swiftly and effectively to disease outbreaks and disasters across the globe.
Despite its indispensable contributions to global health, the WHO has not been without controversy. Critics argue that its bureaucratic structure and dependence on donor funding have made it susceptible to political influence, as seen in debates over its response to the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the organization’s defenders point to its unique role in providing equitable healthcare solutions to populations that might otherwise be neglected.
The U.S. withdrawal from the WHO raises concerns about the future of global health coordination. Without robust funding and political support from major powers like the United States, the WHO faces challenges in sustaining its vaccine programs, research initiatives, and emergency response capabilities. While other nations have stepped in to fill some financial gaps, the loss of American leadership has disrupted the WHO’s long-term planning. As global health threats become more complex due to climate change, emerging diseases, and geopolitical instability, the necessity of a strong, well-funded WHO remains as critical as ever.
Looking Ahead: Global Health in a Fragmented Landscape
The U.S. withdrawal from the WHO marks a significant inflection point in global health governance. As the international community adapts to this new reality, several critical questions remain about how health challenges will be addressed in an increasingly fragmented landscape.
Health security experts caution that the absence of American leadership creates dangerous gaps in global disease surveillance networks. Dr. Jennifer Nuzzo, Associate Professor at the Department of Environmental Health and Engineering at Johns Hopkins University, has emphasized how the lack of global approaches has made it more challenging to combat pandemics, highlighting how countries often look inward despite the global nature of necessary tools and strategies. These blind spots could prove costly if another pandemic emerges, potentially delaying crucial early warning systems that prevent widespread outbreaks.
Meanwhile, regional health initiatives have begun to expand their mandates in an attempt to fill the void. The Africa Centers for Disease Control has accelerated its capacity-building efforts, while the Association of Southeast Asian Nations has proposed a strengthened regional health emergency response mechanism. However, these organizations lack the global reach, institutional knowledge, and funding capacity that made the WHO effective as a central coordinating body.
For developing nations caught in the crossfire of geopolitical health politics, the consequences are immediate and tangible. Healthcare workers in countries like Mali and Bangladesh report shortages of essential medicines and vaccines previously supplied through WHO channels. Dr. Aboubacar Kampo, UNICEF’s Director of Health Programs, emphasized the critical role of robust supply chains in ensuring vaccine delivery to vulnerable populations, stating, “Strong supply chains help ensure that essential vaccines, medicines and health products make it from the point of inception all the way to the most vulnerable children; every link of the supply chain counts.” These disruptions, exacerbated by funding cuts and logistical challenges threaten to undo decades of progress in healthcare, especially in low-income areas where access to healthcare is already limited.
As the world moves forward, the question is not whether global health governance will continue—it must—but rather what form it will take. Will we see the emergence of competing health blocs aligned with different geopolitical interests? Can the WHO recover its financial footing and operational capacity without U.S. support? Or will new models of public-private partnership reshape how international health challenges are addressed?
What remains clear is that pathogens recognize no borders, and health security remains fundamentally interconnected. The true cost of today’s political decisions will not be measured in dollars saved, but in lives affected across the global community.
As global health threats become more complex due to climate change, emerging diseases, and geopolitical instability, the necessity of a strong, well-funded WHO remains as critical as ever.