Opinion: What the U.S. WHO exit means for global health

Hours after swearing into office, 46^th President Donald Trump signed an executive order stating the United State’s intent to withdraw from the World Health Organization (WHO) after 77 years of membership. This comes as devastating news to the agency, which serves as an international united front to address public health challenges. Out of the 194 member states, the U.S. has by far been the largest monetary contributor for the WHO, donating nearly $1.3 billion between 2022 and 2023. The foundation of this unity may be shaken after this move, with Argentina following Trump’s lead, announcing on February 5, 2025 their intent to withdraw from the WHO as well.

The director of the WHO Collaborating Center for National and Global Health Law, Lawrence Gostin, outlined five consequences that could result from this action. He predicts the onset of various diseases in Americans, whether it be from foreign pathogens, nearly eradicated illnesses, or preventable diseases. Gostin argues the inaccessibility to health information shared among WHO members will leave U.S. health authorities, predominantly the CDC and NIH, unable to monitor and prepare for the spread of infectious diseases across foreign borders. In addition, losing the U.S.’s heavy funding of programs that help suppress epidemics across the globe would increase the risk of these pathogens spreading. The WHO’s vaccination programs also provide more American children access to vaccines including measles, mumps, rubella (MMR), tetanus, diphtheria, and pertussis (TDAP). The loss of these will set back immunization efforts and increase the risks of these childhood diseases.

Outside of the U.S., the rest of the world will likely suffer similar consequences. Between 2022 to 2023, U.S. monetary contributions to the WHO helped them improve access to equitable medical care in various countries, track and suppress epidemics, support healthier environments and address determinants, and address and prepare countries for health emergencies among various other tasks. Many underserved countries, particularly in war–torn areas that have relied on WHO’s medical relief funded by the US may feel this impact more significantly. As a result, these projects may fall into a stalemate, leaving countless communities vulnerable to ailments and without the resources or knowledge to improve their health infrastructures. 

The U.S.’s funding also plays a significant factor in the WHO’s power in fighting infectious diseases, the eradication of smallpox in 1980 serving as testament for their strength. This battle against various pathogens still persists. While tuberculosis may not scare many in the U.S., it has been the deadliest disease in human history and still devastates many communities today, killing 1.25 million people globally in 2023. Having long solved the puzzle of testing, curing, and preventing tuberculosis, the WHO tackles the challenge of bringing these resources to the underserved nations, ravaged by this deadly yet largely treatable disease. To do so, they predict needing $22 billion from the U.S. annually to eradicate tuberculosis by 2030. Without cooperation across the globe, many communities affected by tuberculosis will not have access to the resources needed to turn this otherwise deadly disease into a curable one, or receive the necessary equipment to contain the spread of the pathogens. While the decision to withdraw will leave devastating marks on the U.S. and the WHO, efforts are being made to ensure their missions are not compromised. The U.S.’s contributions have been significant, but if other developed member states similarly increase their donations, the WHO may be able to avoid running into similar problems in the future as the political climate shifts.