As of Jan. 20, President Donald Trump has declared an executive order to remove the United States from the World Health Organization. In response to the nation’s clear hesitation regarding his actions, Trump explained that the decision was made as a result of disorganized and ineffective precautions following the emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic back in 2020. Following Trump’s order, the White House released an official statement, emphasizing the extent of this unaddressed global crisis that has carried on into 2025; it focused on the agency’s “failure to adopt urgently needed reforms, and its inability to demonstrate independence from the inappropriate political influence of WHO member states.”
Back in Trump’s first presidential term in July 2020, he attempted to enact an executive order that initiated nationwide separation from the WHO. However, laws require at least a year’s notice in advance before a nation’s official removal from the agency, meaning that it could not immediately be established. Following Joe Biden’s 2020 election win later that same year, he rescinded Trump’s order the very first day he was in office.
Along with concerns about reform urgency, the Trump administration expresses concerns about payment operations within the organization. In the White House statement, efforts were made to highlight the organization’s lack of consideration of economic equity in the system. The WHO has consistently requested extensively generous funds from America; this is significant, as the proportions of these contributions are quite unbalanced and stretch far beyond the payment efforts of other countries. As a result of this, Trump has concluded that separation from the agency would provide the United States the most benefits economically as well as it would specifically strengthen U.S. resources and outlets for healthcare.
For decades, the United States has been a part of the World Health Organization (WHO). Ever since it was founded in 1948, the World Health Organization has served as a means of connection between nations across the globe – specifically through terms of healthcare. According to a website statement from the United Nations, the WHO has 5 specific motivations, such as “providing leadership on global health matters, shaping the health research agenda, setting norms and standards, articulating evidence-based policy options, providing technical support to countries and monitoring and assessing health trends.”
Based on this information, Americans have been led to question the nation’s current path of direction; certain concerns still remain due to the notable implications that would result from the withdrawal of the United States. According to an article published by the John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, “From a financial standpoint, we are the largest contributor to the WHO—somewhere between 12%–15% in 2022–2023. The WHO is already struggling financially, and the U.S.’s withdrawal will likely lead to a loss of jobs, reduction of work, and less ability to do the functions we just talked about.”
Although financial data aligns with Trump’s perspectives regarding the worldwide situation of COVID-19, the various reasons behind the WHO’s reliance on U.S. funding have been disregarded. Without American involvement, the agency – as well as global health advancements as a whole – will suffer, consequently, since other countries do not have access to the same opportunities, privileges, and systems that the U.S. offers. Without America as its primary source of funding, the WHO will be forced to rely on other countries for leadership – specifically China; based on the Trump administration’s other policies regarding China, this path would likely not be in the best interest of the United States.
As the Trump Administration’s order is intended to specifically focus federal expenditures on U.S. health expansion, benefits could potentially arise for Americans in economic terms. However, if America were to thrive financially as a result of this, all other countries involved with the WHO would be placed at a public health and economic disadvantage. As stated by the John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, the WHO’s goals stretch beyond political boundaries, meaning that “many countries with whom we have very poor diplomatic relations, and that we don’t see eye-to-eye with politically, still reach out to us for support around health.” As the U.S. sacrifices global health and continues to advance the nation’s health care and strengthen its economic state, political relations with foreign countries are likely to weaken due to the U.S.’s direct role in rising tensions.
America’s withdrawal from the World Health Organization indicates a significant shift in global health funding and policies. Essentially, this has directly influenced citizens in the United States, but concerns have expanded beyond national borders. This action correspondingly affects all countries involved in the WHO in regards to the overall state of worldwide healthcare as well as it poses possible threats to the neutrality and future of foreign relations.
