**The Consequences of the US Exit from the World Health Organization (WHO)**
The World Health Organization (WHO), a fundamental element of global health governance since it was established in 1948, is encountering a major financial and operational obstacle as the United States advances its plans to withdraw from the institution. The US, which has traditionally been the largest financial backer of the WHO, representing roughly 18% of its budget, is scheduled to officially exit on January 22, 2026. This choice, sparked by an executive order signed by President Trump, has raised significant alarm among leaders and experts in global health.
### **Context on the US-WHO Dynamic**
Since its creation, the United States has been an essential participant in the WHO, contributing not just financially but also providing technical knowledge and leadership in international health initiatives. Throughout the years, this collaboration has led to notable successes, such as the eradication of smallpox and the near-elimination of polio. The US has also been instrumental in responding to global health crises, including the Ebola outbreak and the COVID-19 pandemic.
However, friction between the US and the WHO intensified during the COVID-19 pandemic. President Trump criticized the organization for its management of the emergency, claiming it was too compliant with China and failed to act promptly to contain the virus. These criticisms, alongside worries regarding financial contributions and wider geopolitical factors, culminated in the decision to withdraw.
### **Financial and Operational Consequences for the WHO**
The departure of the US presents a substantial financial challenge for the WHO. The organization’s budget for the two-year period of 2024-2025 is set at $6.8 billion, with contributions from the US accounting for a significant share of this funding. To address the anticipated budget deficit, WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus has announced a number of cost-reduction strategies. These include:
– Freezing the hiring of new employees.
– Reducing travel costs and shifting meetings to online formats.
– Limiting upgrades to IT infrastructure.
– Pausing office renovations.
While these actions are intended to lessen the impact of the immediate financial fallout, they are insufficient to remedy the long-term effects of losing the US as a member state. Tedros has indicated that more measures will be forthcoming in the next few months.
### **Global Health Repercussions**
The US withdrawal has faced considerable backlash from global health experts, who caution about its extensive ramifications. Kenneth Bernard, a former biodefense official during the George W. Bush administration, characterized the decision as “simply foolish,” stressing that it undermines global health leadership and creates an opportunity for other nations, especially China, to fill the gap.
The WHO is crucial in orchestrating global responses to health crises, tackling the underlying causes of diseases, and bolstering health systems worldwide. The reduction of US support may hinder these initiatives, making the global community less equipped to tackle future health emergencies. Additionally, the withdrawal could diminish America’s sway in international health governance, relinquishing leadership to other countries and potentially jeopardizing its own national security.
### **The WHO’s Reaction and Aspirations for Reconsideration**
In a statement released on January 21, 2025, the WHO expressed disappointment over the US’s decision and called for a reassessment. The organization underscored the reciprocal advantages of the partnership, noting that “WHO and the USA have saved numerous lives and shielded Americans and people globally from health dangers” over the last seventy years.
The WHO’s statement also highlighted the interconnectedness of global health, asserting that health threats in one region can swiftly become threats everywhere. The organization’s capacity to tackle these difficulties effectively relies on the combined support of its 194 member states, including the US.
### **What Lies Ahead?**
According to a 1948 Joint Resolution of Congress, the US exit from the WHO necessitates a one-year notice. This creates an opportunity for the decision to be reversed, either by the current administration or a successor. The WHO and its advocates are likely to persist in urging the US to remain a participant, spotlighting the vital function the organization plays in protecting global health.
Meanwhile, the WHO will have to adjust to the financial and operational difficulties posed by the US exit. This may entail seeking greater contributions from other member nations, diversifying its funding sources, and prioritizing its actions to concentrate on the most urgent global health challenges.
### **Conclusion**
The US withdrawal from the WHO signifies a profound shift in global health governance. As the organization contends with the financial and operational implications of losing its primary contributor, the larger consequences for global health security and leadership remain uncertain. Although the decision has been condemned as myopic and counterproductive, it also highlights the necessity for a renewed pledge to multilateral cooperation in addressing the intricate health issues of the 21st century. Whether the US ultimately reconsiders its choice will have significant repercussions not just for the WHO but for the health and security of individuals worldwide.
