The World Health Organisation without the United States

One of the first executive orders from the second Trump Administration was to formally withdraw from the United Nations’ World Health Organisation. Established in 1948, the WHO tasked itself with the improvement of public health through international cooperation. The organisation was given the “mandate under its constitution to promote the attainment of ‘the highest possible level of health’ by all peoples.” Public health has changed vastly in the last eighty years and has also seen many instances of significant health threats. Some examples that come to mind are the MRSA outbreaks, H5N1 (aka Avian Flu), the Zika virus, Ebola, and the most catastrophic, COVID-19. In a world that is more connected than ever, diseases move and evolve faster than ever before. For the WHO, the withdrawal by the United States will have a profound impact on public health. 

The justification for the United States to leave the WHO is based around the COVID-19 pandemic. The Department of Health and Human Services claims:

“This decision was driven by profound failures in the WHO’s handling of the COVID-19 pandemic originating in Wuhan, China; its persistent refusal to implement necessary reforms; and its lack of accountability, transparency, and independence.” 

After the one year notice period, the United States has terminated funding to the WHO, U.S. personnel and contractors assigned to or embedded with the WHO have been recalled from the WHO headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland and WHO offices worldwide, hundreds of U.S. engagements with WHO have been suspended or discontinued and has ceased official participation in WHO-sponsored committees, leadership bodies, governance structures, and technical working groups. The initial executive order claims that the purpose of this withdrawal is due to the United States’ monetary contributions to the WHO. The order states that “the WHO continues to demand unfairly onerous payments from the United States, far out of proportion with other countries’ assessed payments. China, with a population of 1.4 billion, has 300 percent of the population of the United States, yet contributes nearly 90 percent less to the WHO.” Without the United States, the organisation’s budget will be reduced by about 20%. When looking at other nations for comparison, other major donors such as the United Kingdom and Germany, who each contribute around 4–5%, shows what kind of deficit that the WHO is facing. 

During the WHO Executive Board meeting in February 2026, the group was unable to make a determination of accepting the United States’ withdrawal due to financial obligations. It seems that there are outstanding arrears that need to be settled within the fiscal year prior to withdrawal. A Chinese representative made several statements during the portion of the weeklong meeting that dealt with the U.S. withdrawal. They stated that “Major countries in particular should lead by example,” and that the US “should not treat the WHO as something to be used as it fits and abandoned when it [does] not, nor should they bypass the WHO and set up alternative mechanisms.” Without the United States, there is a vacuum for new leadership for international public health and filling that void can be beneficial to rising powers.