US completes withdrawal from World Health Organization

NEW YORK (JN) – The United States has formally completed its withdrawal from the World Health Organization, ending a relationship that stretched back to the agency’s founding in 1948 and reshaping its role in global public health coordination.

Federal officials confirmed the withdrawal this week, one year after President Donald Trump announced the decision shortly after returning to office. While the legal process has concluded, both U.S. and international health officials acknowledge the separation is incomplete, with unresolved issues ranging from unpaid dues to access to critical global disease surveillance data.

Public health experts warn the move could weaken international responses to emerging outbreaks and reduce the ability of U.S. scientists and pharmaceutical companies to anticipate and counter new health threats. Administration officials, however, argue the United States can pursue bilateral health partnerships without relying on the Geneva-based agency.

The WHO is the United Nations’ specialized health body, responsible for coordinating responses to global health emergencies such as Ebola, mpox, polio, and pandemic influenza. It also provides technical assistance to low- and middle-income countries, helps distribute vaccines and treatments during crises, and sets health guidelines used worldwide. Nearly every country is a member.

Withdrawal rooted in COVID-19 criticism

The Trump administration has repeatedly cited the WHO’s handling of the COVID-19 pandemic as the primary justification for the withdrawal. In an executive order issued at the start of the president’s term, the administration accused the agency of mismanaging the early stages of the crisis, failing to enact necessary reforms, and lacking independence from political influence by member states.

During the pandemic, the WHO drew criticism for several early assessments that were later revised, including guidance discouraging mask use among the general public and its initial position that the coronavirus was not airborne. The agency formally updated its stance on airborne transmission years later, following growing scientific consensus.

Administration officials have also pointed to governance concerns, noting that none of the WHO’s nine directors-general since its creation have been American. They argue that imbalance is inconsistent with the level of U.S. financial and technical contributions over decades.

The United States has historically been one of the WHO’s largest funders. According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Washington paid an average of about $111 million annually in assessed membership dues, along with roughly $570 million per year in voluntary contributions supporting specific programs. The U.S. also supplied hundreds of public health experts, many from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, to WHO-led initiatives.

Impact on global health efforts

Health specialists say the withdrawal risks undermining long-running international programs, including efforts to eradicate polio, improve maternal and child health, and identify emerging infectious diseases before they spread widely.

Lawrence Gostin, a professor of global health law at Georgetown University, said the decision could weaken both global preparedness and U.S. access to early warning systems. The United States has already ceased participation in WHO committees, governance bodies, and technical working groups, including those that monitor circulating influenza strains and help determine seasonal flu vaccine composition.

Such surveillance has historically allowed U.S. health authorities and manufacturers to respond quickly when new variants or pathogens emerge. Without formal participation, experts say the United States may receive less timely or less comprehensive information.

The Infectious Diseases Society of America has described the withdrawal as damaging to science-based decision-making and international cooperation. Other public health leaders have echoed concerns that global disease threats are more difficult to contain when major powers act independently.

Administration defends bilateral approach

Trump administration officials maintain that the United States can protect its public health interests through direct agreements with individual countries, rather than working through multilateral institutions. They say existing relationships can facilitate data sharing and outbreak response without WHO involvement.

However, officials have not detailed how many such arrangements are in place or how comprehensive they are. Experts familiar with international health treaties say replacing a centralized global network with dozens of bilateral agreements would be difficult, particularly with countries that have strained diplomatic or trade relationships with Washington.

China, parts of Africa, and other regions where new pathogens are often first detected may be reluctant to share sensitive health data outside established multilateral frameworks, analysts note. The WHO currently serves as a neutral platform for that exchange.

Financial obligations disputed

The withdrawal has also exposed a dispute over unpaid U.S. contributions. Under WHO rules, member states are required to give one year’s notice before leaving and to settle outstanding financial obligations.

According to the organization, the United States has not paid assessed dues for 2024 and 2025, leaving an outstanding balance of more than $133 million. WHO officials say those payments remain legally owed despite the withdrawal.

An administration official rejected that interpretation, arguing the United States had no obligation to pay dues once the withdrawal process was complete. The disagreement has not been formally resolved.

Some legal scholars also question whether the executive branch alone had authority to exit the organization. The United States joined the WHO through congressional action, and critics argue a similar act of Congress would be required to withdraw. The administration disputes that view.

A reshaped role in global health

The U.S. exit marks a significant shift in the architecture of global health governance. While the country remains a scientific and pharmaceutical powerhouse, its absence from the world’s primary health coordination body could limit its influence over international standards, outbreak response strategies, and long-term health initiatives.

For now, the WHO continues its work without one of its founding members, while U.S. officials pursue alternative arrangements. The long-term consequences—for global preparedness and for U.S. public health security—are likely to become clearer only when the next major international health emergency emerges.