The United States has formally completed its withdrawal from the World Health Organization (WHO), fulfilling a long-standing goal of then-President Donald Trump. The process, initiated with a formal notice during his administration, required a one-year notification period and settlement of outstanding financial obligations. However, despite the finalization by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the U.S. still owes the WHO approximately $260 million. Dr. Lawrence Gostin, a global health law expert at Georgetown University, noted that while legal requirements mandate payment, the WHO possesses little power to compel the U.S. to fulfill this debt, making payment unlikely.
Following the withdrawal, HHS confirmed the termination of all U.S. government funding to the WHO, the recall of American personnel, and the cessation of participation in all WHO-sponsored committees and governance structures. Administration officials justified the decision, stating the United States had not received sufficient value from its involvement and that the WHO had “acted contrary to the U.S. interest.” A central reason cited for the withdrawal was the WHO‘s handling of the Covid-19 pandemic, particularly allegations of delaying a global public health emergency declaration, praising China despite reported underreporting, and initially downplaying airborne and asymptomatic transmission.
Despite the move, administration officials affirmed the United States‘ commitment to global health leadership, albeit through a different approach. The U.S. plans to collaborate directly with individual countries, non-governmental organizations, and religious groups on infectious disease surveillance and data sharing, with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Global Health Center spearheading these efforts. However, public health experts have voiced concerns, warning that replacing WHO coordination with bilateral agreements could create significant gaps in global surveillance and response capabilities. Dr. Ronald Nahass, president of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, criticized the withdrawal as a “shortsighted and misguided abandonment of our global health commitments,” potentially leaving the world more vulnerable to future biological threats.
