What a US Exit From the WHO Means for Global Health and Future Pandemic Risks

The United States has officially ended its membership in the World Health Organization (WHO), marking a historic shift in its approach to global health cooperation. This comes a year after President Donald

Trump announced the plans. While the exit leaves behind an unresolved debt of about $260 million, concerns have also been raised about the far-reaching consequences for disease surveillance, pandemic preparedness, and international cooperation. As the world continues to grapple with the aftereffects of COVID-19, the prospect of lesser engagement by the US only raises worries that the global leadership is weakened at a time when coordinated responses are more critical than ever.

Why did the US leave the WHO?

The executive order signed by Trump accused the WHO of mishandling the 2020 global pandemic and being politically influenced by member states, namely China. The Trump administration also argued the organisation failed to adopt urgently-needed reforms. The Department of Health and Human Services said all funding to the WHO has been stopped, while American personnel were recalled from the WHO’s headquarters in Geneva and offices around the world.

What will be the impact on global health programmes?

Historically, the US has been the world’s largest financial contributor to the WHO - providing both assessed and voluntary funding that supports emergency response operations, vaccine programs, and networks that monitor diseases and infections in low- and middle-income countries. A full exit not only creates a substantial funding gap but may also disrupt long-standing public health initiatives that target infectious and deadly diseases like polio, tuberculosis, and malaria. Also, the American research agencies – one of the most respected in the world, along with their scientists and institutions – have always been deeply embedded in WHO advisory panels, data-sharing frameworks, and emergency task forces. This current situation may reduce the flow of data and expertise, which can slow early-warning systems that are designed to detect dangerous outbreaks.

Apart from the leadership vacuum it may bring, there can be a sudden redefining of norms, standards, and strategic priorities, which may disturb the functioning of various organisations and the funds they receive. The WHO has always been the only global body to dispatch the largest response for outbreaks of various diseases like mpox, dengue, Ebola virus disease, or even the Middle East respiratory syndrome – all of which have high fatality rates. The exclusion of American researchers and scientists will certainly hamper these efforts and diminish any small nation’s capacity to protect itself.Also read: Is Trump’s Bruised Hand Really Result Of Just ‘Big Aspirin’?

What is the way ahead?

Critics of the WHO have always argued that reforms are needed to improve transparency, accountability, and crisis response speed. However, public health experts also stress that disengagement from the US may undermine reform efforts rather than strengthen them. Working from within, they argue, offers greater leverage to improve global health governance than withdrawal. As the frequency of pandemics and health emergencies increases due to globalization and climate change, the stakes of global coordination have never been higher. A US exit from the WHO would not just reshape institutional dynamics, it may also redefine how the world prepares and responds to future health-related crises.