U.S. Withdraws from WHO: What Does It Mean for Global Health and America’s Role?

On January 20, 2025, President Donald Trump signed an executive order to withdraw the United States from the World Health Organization (WHO). This decision has reignited debates over America’s vital role in international health. As the largest financial contributor to the WHO, the U.S. plays a critical role in sustaining its programs, which range from combating infectious diseases to responding to global health emergencies. The withdrawal has raised questions about Trump’s motives, the future of the WHO, and the broader implications for global health security when another pandemic eventually arises.

What Is the WHO, and Why Does It Matter?

The WHO, founded in 1948, is a subsector of the United Nations responsible for international public health. Its primary goal is to address all types of global health endeavors and challenges such as pandemics, vaccination research and campaigns, and health system improvements.

The WHO’s funding comes from contributions from member nations and voluntary contributions from governments, NGOs, and private entities. The U.S. is the largest single donor, contributing about 15% of the WHO’s total budget. In comparison, China, the second-largest global economy, provides far less funding—a disparity that has become a key point of contention for Trump.

Trump’s Decision: Official Statements vs. Hidden Motives

President Trump’s public justification for the withdrawal first centered on allegations that the WHO mishandled the COVID-19 pandemic and operated under the corrupt political influence of China. He also criticized the organization’s governance, accusing it of failing to enforce transparency and accountability among member states. Trump has also argued that the U.S. contributions are disproportionately high compared to those of other nations, calling it an “unfair financial burden” on American taxpayers. This is a true statement, though. It’s estimated that the U.S. pays $600 million annually to the WHO(most out of any country) while China only pays around $90 million. Most of this comes from voluntary contributions that the U.S. has made since their annual dues are similar. 

However, critics and analysts suggest deeper motivations behind the decision. Many believe Trump’s move is a strategic attempt to leverage U.S. financial power to pressure other countries into increasing their contributions and lowering the U.S.’s contributions. China’s low financial commitment to the WHO has been a particular sore point for Trump, who views it as emblematic of broader favoritism by the WHO. By initiating the withdrawal, Trump may be seeking to force reforms that redistribute the financial burden more equitably. Trump’s tactic aligns with his “America First” policy, which emphasizes reducing U.S. commitments to international causes.   The withdrawal will not take place for a year after Trump’s executive order. In that time, I predict Trump will return to the WHO, simply using this executive order as a negotiating ploy rather than an authentic policy shift.

The Implications of the Withdrawal

The U.S. withdrawal from the WHO carries some major consequences for international public health. As the WHO's top donor, the U.S. has played a key role in funding the organization's many public health programs. Without U.S. contributions, The WHO's initiatives could face some potential funding issues. 

Domestically, the decision could leave the U.S. less prepared to address future pandemics and health crises. The WHO plays a vital role in coordinating global responses to disease outbreaks, sharing data, and developing international guidelines. This was seen in action most recently during Covid-19 when the WHO created a fund that raised over $250 million that went to equipment for frontline workers and supporting the world’s most vulnerable populations. Additionally, the WHO kickstarted the movement to get a COVID vaccine and was a key resource in spreading the vaccine worldwide to economically disadvantaged countries rapidly.  By distancing itself from the organization, the U.S. risks losing access to critical resources and partnerships that enhance its own public health infrastructure. Moreover, if the U.S. does end up leaving in about a year, the WHO will have a large gap of influence to fill– and who else but China? With the absence of U.S. funding and leadership, China seems like the clear nation to step up, possibly giving them more international influence.

What Comes Next?

Trump’s administration has quickly indicated a willingness to reconsider the decision if other nations agree to increase their financial contributions and adopt any reforms that Trump might want. However, the stakes are high. A prolonged absence from the WHO could have lasting consequences for U.S. credibility and global health. Whether Trump’s gamble pays off or backfires will depend on how the WHO and other nations respond to this truly unprecedented move.

Conclusion

The U.S. withdrawal from the World Health Organization signals a major shift in global health governance, with implications for both international and domestic public health. While President Trump frames the decision as a necessary correction to what he perceives as financial inequities and governance failures within the WHO, critics argue it is a high-stakes negotiation tactic that risks weakening the U.S.’s ifnfluence on global health while empowering his rival nations. The WHO is a cornerstone of international efforts to combat pandemics, improve vulnerable health systems, and foster collaboration among nations. Without the U.S., the organization could face significant funding and operational challenges. Simultaneously, without the WHO, America will find itself isolated from the global network that is vital during health crises. Whether this move represents a genuine policy shift or a ploy to pressure reform within the organization, its repercussions are undeniable. As the year unfolds, the world will watch closely to see whether this withdrawal marks a permanent pivot or yet another chapter in Trump’s transactional approach to international relations. Either way, the health of billions hangs on this decision.