President Trump’s decision to withdraw the United States from the WHO and other actions threaten to weaken it … (+)
On January 20, 2025, the same day as his inauguration for his second term, US President Donald Trump signed an executive order initiating the withdrawal of the United States from the World Health Organization (WHO). The move has profound implications for global health, as the United States is historically the WHO’s largest donor. contributing more than $10 billion in the past fiscal year aloneAnd contributing around 18% of the WHO budget.
This withdrawal means that the WHO will lose both a significant percentage of its funding but also the expertise of American health professionals. Experts like Michael Osterholm, PhD, MPH, Director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy, emphasizes that WHO plays an irreplaceable role in coordinating responses to infectious diseases and supporting countries during health emergencies. Osterholm said: “This represents one of the darkest days in public health that I can remember. » Losing US support could disrupt WHO operations, affecting their effectiveness and speed, particularly in handling epidemics such as avian flu or Marburg virus disease.
Additionally, this decision creates a policy vacuum that other countries, notably China, could fill, thereby increasing their influence in global health governance. Health experts warning that this shift could shift the balance of power in international health policy and sideline U.S. interests and priorities.. Ashish Jha, MD, MPH, White House pandemic response coordinator under the Biden administration, calls the decision a “strategic mistake.” in an interview with CNN on Mondayfurther adding that “the WHO is a pretty essential organization – and with the US withdrawing, it creates a policy vacuum that only one country can fill – and that is China.” »
The decision also raises concerns about the United States’ ability to access critical data on emerging health threats. Without participation in the WHO, the United States could find itself isolated from vital information networks, making the nation more vulnerable. Lawrence Gostin, a professor of law and public health at Georgetown University, calls the withdrawal “cataclysmic.” highlighting the risks of losing access to essential health data and collaboration.
Financially, withdrawal could jeopardize various global health initiatives. Programs such as the Global Fund and Gavi, which rely on U.S. funding, could face significant shortfalls, hampering efforts to control infectious diseases and conduct essential research. This alone can impact hundreds of millions of lives. By the end of 2023, the Global Fund the partnership has saved approximately 65 million lives, and Gavi has facilitated the vaccination of more than 1.1 billion children in 78 low-income countries, preventing more than 18.8 million future deaths.
President Donald Trump’s administration has already signed a decree to suspend all U.S. foreign assistance programs for 90 days, pending a thorough review to ensure alignment with the administration’s policy goals. This suspension directly affects the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), which plays a crucial role in funding local partners around the world. The pause in aid raises concerns about the continuity of essential health programs, including those targeting HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis, as well as maternal and child health. The review process may lead to a reallocation of funds, potentially prioritizing programs that more closely align with the administration’s foreign policy goals, thereby affecting available support for local health initiatives.
The potential reenactment of policies such as the Mexico City Policy, also known as the “global gag rule”, Could impact millions of people around the world by restricting NGOs providing reproductive services. This policy prohibits U.S. federal funding to foreign nongovernmental organizations that provide abortion counseling or referrals, advocate for the decriminalization of abortion, or expand abortion services. Reinstatement of this policy could have a significant impact on organizations that provide comprehensive reproductive health services, leading to reduced access to contraception and increased rates of unintended pregnancies and unsafe abortions.
Furthermore, The administration’s position on multilateral health initiatives, such as the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), remains unclear. During the previous administration, attempts were made to cut funding for these programs, but were met with resistance from Congress. However, the current political climate may influence the level of support these initiatives receive, potentially affecting millions of people who rely on them for essential health services.
In summary, President Trump’s decision to withdraw the United States from the WHO and other actions threaten to weaken international health security, disrupt essential health programs, and diminish the United States’ role in global health policymaking. As the world continues to face complex health challenges, the absence of U.S. leadership at the WHO could have far-reaching consequences for global health initiatives and pandemic preparedness.
America’s legacy of addressing threats to global health security – including within the United States – is under threat. This will require increased engagement and advocacy with local organizations to provide community-level solutions. Additionally, there is an opportunity to the private sector must bridge the gap by investing more creatively and aggressively in global healthcare solutionsespecially as private health spending is growing faster than GDP in many emerging economies.