US withdrawal from WHO will have significant implications

USA Today

08-02-2025

US withdrawal from WHO will have significant implications | Opinion
Show Caption
Hide Caption
US Senator Sheldon Whitehouse answers questions about the RFK hearing
US Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, in RI to attend a groundbreaking for the REGENT' Seaglider factory, answers questions about the RFK hearing
President Trump withdrew the United States from the World Health Organization, a decision criticized by public and global health scholars.
The U.S. provides significant financial support to the WHO, enabling initiatives like disease eradication and maternal health programs.
Critics argue that withdrawing from the WHO will create a vacuum in global health leadership, potentially benefiting China.
The decision raises concerns about the U.S.'s ability to protect its citizens from future pandemics and influence global health policy.
Global health is a matter of national security, especially in an interconnected world facing shared health challenges.
As part of the sweeping reforms in his first few days in office, President Donald Trump announced he is withdrawing the United States from the World Health Organization. The decision, which has been criticized by public and global health scholars, will have far-reaching consequences ‒ not only globally but also for the health and security of the U.S.
In my global health courses, I often remind my students that infectious diseases know no borders. COVID-19 serves as a recent, devastating reminder of how quickly diseases spread across the globe. According to the Population Reference Bureau, 70,000 foreigners arrive daily in the U.S., mostly visitors, and according to the Federal Aviation Administration (2024), 2.9 million passengers fly every day in and out of U.S. airports ‒ international cooperation is essential to safeguard public health.
Given the rising vaccine hesitancy in the U.S. in the context of COVID-19 vaccination rates, this issue will only intensify in the coming years, which would surely take on a new form under Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s anti-vaccine leadership in Trump's administration. With the recent poliovirus outbreak in New York State in 2022, the U.S. faces an impending public health crisis, which will only be amplified if global efforts to combat disease and outbreak are weakened.
The executive order justifies this withdrawal, citing alleged mismanagement of COVID-19 by the World Health Organization and claims of disproportionate financial demands on the U.S. The organization, founded in 1948, is a specialized agency of the United Nations. The U.S. government has been actively engaged throughout its founding, providing technical and financial support and participating in its governance structure. A report from KFF, formally known as the Kaiser Family Foundation and a leading independent source for health policy research, cites that the U.S. has contributed annually between $163 million and $816 million, making it one of the largest funders, allowing WHO to achieve initiatives such as disease eradication and maternal health programs, among others.
To be sure, scholars advocating for decolonizing global health are critical of the disproportionate decision-making power high-income countries have on what should get funded and how, in sharp contrast to the lesser decision-making power low- or middle-income countries have that are often at the receiving end of the aid. Scholars have noted that these power dynamics echo colonial histories, where global health efforts historically emerged from colonial powers seeking to circumscribe disease in the colonies and protect their populations. Despite these critiques, the solution is reform, not abandonment.
From a strategic perspective, the decision to withdraw has significant geopolitical implications: Ashish Jha, dean of the Brown University School of Public Health, who served as the White House COVID-19 response coordinator from 2022-2023, has called the decision a 'strategic error,' warning that the decision to withdraw from the WHO would create a vacuum in global leadership, likely to be taken up by China. This could risk the U.S. losing its moral authority and its key influence in shaping global health policy.
As such, the decision to abandon the WHO jeopardizes decades of progress in combating diseases like polio and HIV, undermines our ability to protect U.S. citizens from future pandemics, and excludes the country from being included in global discussions on shaping global health policy. In a world as interconnected as ours, global health should not be seen just as an act of altruism; it is a matter of national security.
Given the unimaginable loss the U.S. suffered from COVID-19, one can hope that countries will collaborate to share resources, information and strategies to address some of the highest-priority global health issues.
Sarah Ahmed is an assistant professor of health sciences and women's and gender studies at Providence College.