After a year-long process, the United States officially exits the World Health Organization (W.H.O.) today, marking a significant shift in global health partnerships.
The withdrawal concludes on Thursday, following notification of intent to leave the U.N. agency about a year ago. This action stems from an executive order signed by President Donald Trump a year and two days prior, on the first day of his second term, alongside a similar decree to exit the Paris climate agreement. The Trump administration had initially pulled out during his first term, though former President Joe Biden opted to rejoin, a move reported to cost millions.
The decision has sparked intense debate over the financial and operational fallout for the W.H.O. and America’s role in global health. Critics of the agency point to long-standing inefficiencies, while supporters warn of dire consequences for international emergency responses.
Trump’s justification for leaving centers on the W.H.O.’s alleged mishandling of health crises, notably the COVID-19 outbreak originating in Wuhan, China, Breitbart reported. His executive order accused the agency of failing to enact necessary reforms and bowing to undue political pressures from member states.
In remarks to reporters on January 20, 2025, Trump highlighted funding disparities, stating, “So we paid $500 million to [the] World Health Organization when I was here, and I terminated it.” He noted China, with a population of 1.4 billion, paid a mere $39 million compared to America’s hefty contribution, calling the imbalance “a little unfair.” Though he clarified this wasn’t the sole reason for withdrawal, the numbers paint a stark picture.
Let’s unpack that: a nation with over four times the U.S. population coughing up less than a tenth of what American taxpayers shelled out. If that’s not a raw deal, what is? The question isn’t just about dollars—it’s about whether the W.H.O. delivers value for such a lopsided investment.
W.H.O. Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus has spent the past year sounding alarms over the financial hit from losing America’s contributions. He predicted a “catastrophe” that could slash the agency’s emergency response capabilities, later suggesting budget cuts exceeding 20 percent. Yet, he’s also framed this as a chance for the W.H.O. to stand on its own feet.
At the World Economic Forum in Davos on Wednesday, Tedros remarked, “Just as the world was starting to recover, sudden and severe cuts in foreign aid have once again hit the poorest and most vulnerable communities the hardest.” That’s a heavy claim, but where’s the accountability for how past funds were managed? If the W.H.O. struggles now, shouldn’t we ask why it leaned so heavily on one donor?
Tedros has taken credit for reforms under the so-called W.H.O. Transformation, claiming steps over eight years to reduce reliance on major donors like the U.S. But if over-dependence was a known risk since 2017, why does the agency seem so unprepared for this exit? The timing of these reforms raises eyebrows.
The Communist Party of China, through state-run media, has slammed the U.S. withdrawal, alleging unpaid debts and irresponsibility. A regime-backed researcher, Lü Xiang, told the Global Times the move reflects a “longstanding irresponsible attitude.” But coming from a government notorious for opacity, isn’t this a bit rich?
Lü also warned the withdrawal could turn America into an “information silo,” unable to coordinate with other nations. Yet, as the story notes, no explanation was given for why standard diplomatic channels like the State Department wouldn’t suffice in a crisis. Sounds more like posturing than a serious critique.
Meanwhile, Reuters reports the U.S. still owes $260 million to the W.H.O., a figure the agency plans to address at its next executive board meeting. The State Department counters that American taxpayers have already paid far more than enough, calling the financial impact a sufficient contribution. With no enforcement mechanism to compel payment, this dispute may linger unresolved.
Tedros insists the W.H.O. must remain central to a rebuilding global health framework, acknowledging parts of the system are being dismantled. His vision of self-reliance for poorer nations, spurred by aid cuts, is noble in theory. But without U.S. funding, can the agency truly lead?
The broader issue here is trust—or the lack of it. Trump’s exit was rooted in a belief that the W.H.O. botched critical responses, like the early days of the Wuhan virus, and failed to resist political meddling. Whether you agree or not, his move forces a reckoning on whether global bodies serve their purpose or just bloat their budgets.
Ultimately, America’s departure from the W.H.O. isn’t just a policy shift—it’s a signal. If international organizations can’t prove their worth to the folks footing the bill, they shouldn’t be surprised when the check stops coming. The ball is now in the W.H.O.’s court to adapt or risk irrelevance.
