United States withdraws from WHO: Analyzing the impact & way forward

New Delhi: Citing potential economic damage and unfair burdens, the President of United States, Donald Trump on January 20, 2025 announced the withdrawal of his nation from the World Health Organization (WHO).

The decision sent shockwaves across the global health landscape.

For decades, the United States has been one of the most significant contributors to the WHO, providing not only financial support but also technical expertise and leadership. These contributions have propelled initiatives such as the eradication of smallpox, the fight against HIV/AIDS, and the ongoing battle to eliminate polio. Despite periodic tensions, the partnership between the U.S. and the WHO has been instrumental in advancing global health priorities.

The decision to withdraw, however, marks a departure from this tradition of cooperation, signaling a troubling shift toward isolationism in global health governance.

The Financial Fallout

The United States’ contributions account for approximately 15% of the WHO’s budget, funding programs that address a wide spectrum of health challenges—from immunization campaigns to emergency responses. Without U.S. funding, the WHO faces a critical shortfall, jeopardizing its ability to sustain disease eradication efforts, such as polio and measles.; provide essential health services to vulnerable populations; and respond effectively to health emergencies like pandemics and natural disasters.

This financial gap cannot easily be filled by other member states or private donors, leaving vital programs at risk of collapse.

Beyond the immediate financial and operational impacts, the U.S. withdrawal sends a disheartening message about the future of multilateralism. At a time when global challenges like pandemics, climate change, and antimicrobial resistance require unified action, the retreat of a major power undermines trust and cooperation.

This decision risks setting a precedent and other nations may follow suit, weakening the WHO further. With fragmentation of efforts, regional alliances may emerge to fill the void, leading to inefficiencies and duplication. The absence of U.S. leadership erodes confidence in collective problem-solving.

Possible Impact

The WHO plays a pivotal role in coordinating global responses to health crises. Its early warning systems, research initiatives, and technical guidelines are indispensable in containing outbreaks. The U.S. withdrawal weakens these efforts, potentially compromising the global response to emerging threats.

One of the key areas of concern include the pandemic preparedness. The WHO’s capacity to coordinate vaccine development, treatment protocols, and equitable distribution is now under threat. In terms of public health research, there are collaborative studies on diseases ranging from Ebola to COVID-19 may face delays or disruptions. For global surveillance systems, the loss of U.S. expertise and resources could diminish the effectiveness of global disease monitoring.

What Next?

The U.S. withdrawal from the WHO is a stark reminder of the fragility of global health systems in the face of political turbulence. At a time when the world is grappling with interconnected health challenges, retreating from multilateral institutions is debatable but must be looked from all angles.

Reversing the decision to withdraw from the WHO looks difficult at this moment. However, in the meantime, several steps can be taken to mitigate the damage.

While the decision undermines not only the WHO but also the collective ability to protect lives and promote health equity, there is a need for the global body to engage with U.S. policymakers.

WHO must also address the strong concerns being raised by its member countries and the critics globally.

The U.S. too can work with neighboring countries and regional organizations to address shared health challenges. Philanthropic organizations and private companies can help bridge funding gaps for critical health programs. Constructive engagement with the WHO can help address legitimate concerns about transparency and efficiency.

Rebuilding trust and reasserting leadership in global health will require bold action.