Why Did the US Leave the WHO?

The Trump administration justified the withdrawal primarily on financial grounds, arguing that the U.S. contributes a disproportionately large share of the WHO’s funding. Official White House statements highlighted that China, despite having a population three times larger than the U.S., contributes roughly 90% less to the organization. This disparity in financial contributions fueled claims of unfair burden-sharing.

Beyond funding concerns, the administration also criticized the WHO’s handling of the COVID-19 pandemic, alleging a lack of accountability and transparency. These accusations centered on the WHO’s initial response to the outbreak and its recommendations regarding masking and physical distancing.

The WHO vigorously defended its pandemic response, asserting that its guidance was based on the best available scientific evidence at the time. Experts also point out that investing in global health security through organizations like the WHO is ultimately more cost-effective than responding to widespread outbreaks after they have already taken hold. Preventative measures are significantly cheaper than crisis management.

The withdrawal process itself is complex. Unlike most nations, the U.S. negotiated a unique clause in its original WHO agreement allowing for withdrawal with one year’s notice and full payment of assessed dues. While notice was given in 2025, the U.S. still reportedly owes the WHO approximately $260 million in outstanding fees for 2024-25. Legal questions surrounding the withdrawal remain unresolved.

Immediate Impacts of US Withdrawal on Global Health

The U.S. withdrawal significantly weakens global public health infrastructure. The WHO prioritizes critical areas such as infectious disease control, antimicrobial resistance, disaster preparedness, and access to essential medicines. These efforts require coordinated, large-scale responses, and the loss of the U.S. – historically the WHO’s largest single funder – creates a substantial operational gap.

With annual contributions in the hundreds of millions of dollars, the U.S. has been a cornerstone of WHO funding. The loss of this funding has already prompted the WHO to announce significant cuts, including the elimination of roughly 2,300 positions – a quarter of its workforce – and a restructuring of its divisions. These cuts will inevitably impact the WHO’s ability to respond effectively to emerging health crises.

Beyond financial support, the U.S. has historically provided crucial expertise and personnel to the WHO, contributing to successful responses to outbreaks of Ebola, mpox, and Marburg virus. This collaborative relationship has been instrumental in containing these deadly diseases, which have fatality rates as high as 50%. The Infectious Diseases Society of America has described the withdrawal as “a shortsighted and misguided abandonment of our global health commitments,” emphasizing that “global cooperation and communication are critical to keep our own citizens protected because germs do not respect borders.” This sentiment underscores the interconnectedness of global health security.

Long-Term Consequences and the Future of Pandemic Preparedness

The withdrawal has long-term implications for U.S. pandemic preparedness. A key consequence is the loss of U.S. participation in the WHO’s Global Influenza Surveillance and Response System, a vital network established in 1952. This system is crucial for predicting circulating flu strains and developing effective vaccines each year. Without U.S. data and expertise, the accuracy of these predictions could be compromised.

Annual flu vaccines are developed a year in advance based on global data analysis by the WHO. While manufacturers may still access WHO recommendations, the U.S. will no longer contribute data or participate in the analytical process, potentially leading to discrepancies between U.S. and international vaccine formulations. This divergence could increase the risk of less effective vaccines and more severe flu seasons. The CDC estimates that influenza causes millions of illnesses, hundreds of thousands of hospitalizations, and tens of thousands of deaths annually in the U.S. Diminished preparedness could exacerbate these numbers.

Furthermore, the U.S. withdrawal damages its reputation as a global health leader. This reputational damage could hinder future international collaborations and diminish U.S. influence in shaping global health strategies. Experts predict that China will likely fill the void, increasing its influence within the WHO and potentially reshaping global health priorities. China has already pledged an additional $500 million in support of the WHO, signaling its intent to expand its role.

Access to timely data is also jeopardized. WHO member nations have preferential access to detailed data on emerging health threats. Delays in accessing this information could hamper the U.S.’s ability to respond effectively to future outbreaks.

Could the U.S. rejoin the WHO under a new administration? The WHO has expressed its desire for continued engagement, stating it “regrets the U.S. decision” and hopes for a reconsideration. In the meantime, states like California are taking proactive steps, joining the WHO’s Global Outbreak Alert & Response Network and forging alliances with other states to address public health challenges. These initiatives demonstrate a commitment to public health at the state level, even in the absence of federal leadership.

What role will state-level initiatives play in mitigating the risks associated with the U.S. withdrawal from the WHO? And how will the evolving geopolitical landscape impact global health security in the years to come?

Frequently Asked Questions About the US and the WHO

Did You Know? The WHO’s Global Influenza Surveillance and Response System has been instrumental in tracking and mitigating the spread of influenza viruses worldwide since 1952.