The United States has formally completed its withdrawal from the World Health Organization (WHO), fulfilling a long-standing objective of then-President Donald Trump. The announcement, made by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), follows a formal notice issued at the outset of Trump’s second term, though the initial attempt to leave was made earlier. U.S. law mandated a one-year notice period and the settlement of outstanding financial obligations. However, the U.S. still owes the WHO an estimated $260 million, a sum that legal experts, including Dr. Lawrence Gostin of Georgetown University, believe is unlikely to be paid, given the WHO‘s limited power to enforce such payments. While the WHO theoretically could contest the withdrawal through a resolution, it is generally considered improbable, acknowledging the clear intent of the U.S. administration to depart.
Subsequent to the withdrawal, HHS confirmed that all U.S. government funding to the WHO has been terminated, American personnel and contractors have been recalled, and the United States has ceased participation in WHO-sponsored committees and governance bodies. Despite these sweeping changes, discussions are reportedly ongoing regarding potential limited cooperation on specific issues, such as the composition of future influenza vaccines. Administration officials justified the exit by asserting that the United States had not derived sufficient value from its engagement with the organization, claiming the WHO had acted “contrary to the U.S. interest in protecting the American public.” They also noted that despite being the largest financial contributor, an American had never held the position of the organization’s Director-General.
A pivotal reason cited by HHS for the withdrawal was the WHO‘s handling of the Covid-19 pandemic. The administration specifically criticized the organization for delays in declaring a global public health emergency and for its praise of China‘s response, which the U.S. described as characterized by early underreporting, information suppression, and delayed confirmation of human-to-human transmission. Additionally, the WHO was faulted for initially downplaying the airborne transmission and asymptomatic spread of the virus. A senior HHS official emphasized that this action would liberate the country’s health policies from being “constrained by unaccountable foreign bureaucrats.”
Despite disengaging from the WHO, U.S. officials affirmed the nation’s commitment to maintaining a leading role in global health. The new strategy involves direct collaboration with individual countries, non-governmental organizations, and religious groups on infectious disease surveillance and data sharing. This initiative is slated to be led by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Global Health Center, with officials assuring that comprehensive plans are in place to address any potential gaps created by the withdrawal. However, public health experts expressed significant apprehension regarding this bilateral approach. Critics, including a former CDC official, warned that replacing the WHO‘s coordinated global framework with individual agreements would inevitably create substantial gaps in global surveillance and response capabilities, stressing that the CDC‘s presence in approximately 60 countries cannot replicate the extensive global reach of the WHO. Dr. Ronald Nahass, president of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, labeled the withdrawal a “shortsighted and misguided abandonment of our global health commitments,” cautioning that it could render the United States and the world more vulnerable to emerging biological threats.
