Trump’s WHO Withdrawal: A Tectonic Shift That Could Cripple Global Health Powerhouses
Unprecedented Decision Sparks Questions on Global Health Security and US Leadership

On January 20, 2025, President Donald Trump, during the inaugural parade of his second presidential term, signed an executive order directing WHO withdrawal from United States. The decision has opened up much controversy, as this is a change in the pattern of global health diplomacy and has dramatically impacted the WHO, which has always relied on America’s contributions from its very origin.
It narrates the reasons for the withdrawal, possible outcomes, the legal and political complexities behind making that choice, and international health governance, which further provides prolonged implications.
The Reasoning Behind the WHO Withdrawal
President Trump has consistently criticized the WHO, mainly for handling the COVID-19 pandemic. He accused the organization of not responding promptly and effectively within the first week of the pandemic and charged it with having an anti-China bias. In his press conference announcing that the United States would pull out, he said, “The WHO has not served American interests. We can’t continue funding organizations prioritizing political games over global health.”
This action is part of a more significant move by Trump to disengage the US from international organizations, which, in his opinion, do not meet America’s agenda. It must be mentioned that the withdrawal was already attempted by Trump in his first term when he did it in 2020 about the WHO; however, it was revoked by President Joe Biden after assuming office in 2021.

The Financial and Operational Impact on the WHO
The United States has been the pillar of the financial framework since joining the organization in 1948. In the budgetary cycle 2024-2025, contributions from the US reached $662 million, making up 19% of the overall income for the organization. Funding through these contributions has helped various global health programs, including:
- Eradication of Smallpox: A historic achievement in which the WHO played a pivotal role.
- Polio Elimination Programs: Ongoing efforts to eradicate polio in vulnerable regions.
- HIV/AIDS Initiatives: Providing resources and expertise to combat the global HIV epidemic.
- Response to Health Crises: Coordinating global efforts to address outbreaks of cholera, pox, dengue, and Marburg virus.
Without the funds the US provides, WHO will likely suffer a serious resource gap that could deter it from undertaking such critical programs. Among those severely impacted would be the reaction to diseases and natural disasters.
Legal and Political Complexities
The US withdrawal from the WHO is not without legal and political hurdles. Before formally quitting the organization, membership conditions require the United States to give one year’s notice and pay outstanding dues. Providing member countries adequate time to readjust is, besides this fact, another element for maintaining a level of continuity of WHO operations.
Still, whether the president can withdraw the United States from the WHO without Congress’s approval is ambiguous. A 2020 Congressional Research Service report illuminated this ambiguity. Even so, it is not likely that the Republican-controlled Congress will disagree with Trump’s pick because the party supports his policy agenda.
Global Reactions to the Decision
This policy has evoked different reactions from the international community. Critics say that the United States’ involvement worsens things when needed most in the global health system. Support applauds it for responding to humanitarian emergencies, preventing pandemics, and reducing health inequities.
Health workers have warned that the US pullout may lead to:
- Reduced Funding for Key Programs: The WHO will cut or cancel key programs if the United States withdraws its support.
- Leadership Vacuum: The United States has always been a superpower in international health rule formation. Its absence might render the group less influential.
- Geopolitical Shifts: After the United States closed its doors, the power equilibrium will swing to WHO, with this opportunity on the side of China and the European Union.
On the other hand, the move has been welcomed by his supporters as a step to put American sovereignty above everything. According to them, this money drawn out from WHO can be invested in healthcare programs in America, which are so badly needed to upgrade infrastructure and improve preparedness in case of a pandemic.
The Historical Context
The United States has been a member of the WHO since the inception of this organization in 1948. The decades have brought with them tremendous benefits from this partnership, including:
- The eradication of smallpox in 1980.
- Expanded vaccination programs in developing countries.
- Advancements in disease surveillance and outbreak response.
Trump’s decision to withdraw is wildly unlikely to leave this legacy. It continues the history of past actions to undermine international organizations, such as earlier choices to stop giving money to the UN and to leave the Paris Climate Agreement.

Potential Consequences for Global Health
The US withdrawal from the WHO some far-reaching consequences could arise:
- Delayed Pandemic Response: The WHO oversees international efforts to detect and curb new health threats. However, the lack of money and resources may delay its response.
- Setbacks in Disease Eradication: Programs like polio and malaria heavily rely on US funding. Their success could be compromised.
- Increased Health Inequities: Developing countries that depend on WHO-led programs may find gaining access to vaccines, treatments, and health infrastructure challenging.
Looking Ahead: What Comes Next?
As the WHO readies itself for losing its biggest donor, member states must find alternative funding sources. These could be:
- Increased Contributions from Other Nations: Countries like Germany, France, and Japan can increase their funding.
- Public-Private Partnerships: Collaborations with philanthropic organizations and the private sector could help fill the funding gap.
- Reforms to Enhance Efficiency: Operations can be streamlined, and high-impact programs can be prioritized to build the WHO’s resilience.
Simultaneously, the US government has to answer to domestic critics regarding its place in global health. In short, critics of withdrawal argue that health issues are global and hence require international responses. Isolation by the US may expose it to the risk of losing much-needed information and know-how that the WHO may avail itself of.

Conclusion
Trump’s decision to pull the United States from the World Health Organization. Whoever that might be has ushered in an important new chapter of global health governance. However, actions by his administration have been grave enough and have breathed action, filing on the fate of international collaboration concerning health matters.
The retirement of WHO’s most significant contributor brings major challenges and opportunities for creativity and change. As governments wrestle with the consequences of this decision, collaborating and assuming responsibility for global health is more essential than ever.
This coming period will determine whether the United States can strike an appropriate balance between exemplary leadership in global health and home imperatives. Therefore, the interim is the proper time for the international community to unite so that WHO will remain a crucial pillar of worldwide health and effectively serve its mission of promoting health, ensuring global security, and protecting vulnerable people.