The United States has formally finalised its withdrawal from the World Health Organization after nearly eight decades, citing alleged pandemic mismanagement and lack of accountability, a move that alarms public health experts and threatens global disease response systems.
On 22 January 2026, the United States completed its exit from the World Health Organization (WHO), ending 78 years of participation in the United Nations’ specialised agency for global health.
This step, first announced by President Donald Trump on his first day in office in 2025 via an executive order, follows a year-long withdrawal process during which the US ceased WHO funding and pulled personnel from its offices.
Senior officials from the US Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of State reiterated that the withdrawal reflects long-standing concerns over what they describe as the WHO’s mishandling of the COVID-19 pandemic, failure to reform, and susceptibility to political influence.
A senior US official emphasised that Washington “has no plans to participate as an observer, and no plans of rejoining” the WHO, signalling a clear break from its largest historical role in the organisation.
However, the transition has not been seamless. According to the WHO, the US still owes more than $130 million in unpaid dues, and unresolved legal and financial issues are set to be reviewed by the agency’s executive board.
Public health experts have strongly critiqued the exit. Lawrence Gostin, a global health law expert, described the decision as potentially “the most ruinous presidential decision in my lifetime,” warning it will weaken global outbreak response and jeopardise vaccine research and development.
Broader Repercussions for Global Health Cooperation
The United States has historically been the WHO’s largest financial backer, contributing an estimated 18 per cent of its budget through assessed and voluntary funding. Its departure has triggered immediate budget shortfalls, forcing the organisation to scale back management teams and reduce programmes in critical areas such as disease surveillance, maternal and child health, and emergency outbreak response.
Experts warn that the absence of US leadership and funding could weaken coordinated efforts against global health threats — from influenza and polio to Ebola and future pandemics.
Systems like the Global Influenza Surveillance and Response System (GISRS), which relies on international data sharing to inform vaccine composition, may become less effective without formal US participation.
Other nations and private donors are exploring ways to fill the funding vacuum, but many public health advocates caution that replacing the scale and influence of US contributions is unlikely in the short term.
Changes in influence within the WHO could also reshape the global health agenda, potentially amplifying the roles of countries like China and regional blocs.
The withdrawal additionally affects joint international efforts, including ongoing negotiations for a global pandemic preparedness accord intended to ensure wider access to vaccines and treatments. Washington’s absence has already seen the US reject such agreements, a move that stokes further debate about collective preparedness.
The Logical Indian’s Perspective
The Logical Indian believes that global health security is, by definition, a shared human endeavour. Institutions like the WHO, for all their flaws, play an indispensable role in coordinating responses to cross-border health emergencies, harmonising data sharing, and supporting vulnerable populations.
While criticisms of their performance particularly during the COVID-19 crisis may be valid and deserving of peaceful, evidence-based reform, abandonment is not a constructive solution.
Disengagement risks isolating the United States from vital health intelligence, increases vulnerability to future outbreaks, and weakens global solidarity at a time when cooperation could save millions of lives.
Effective reform should be pursued through collaborative dialogue, accountability mechanisms, and strengthened multilateral partnerships that ensure leadership reflects expertise and equity, not geopolitics.
