United States President Donald Trump has officially announced the country’s withdrawal from the World Health Organization (WHO), a decision that has drawn widespread global attention. The announcement, made on January 21, 2025, cited the WHO’s handling of the COVID-19 pandemic, alleged political influence from member states, and what Trump described as the United States’ disproportionate financial contributions as primary reasons for the move.
At a formal signing of the executive order, President Trump stated, “World Health ripped us off. Everybody rips off the United States. It’s not going to happen anymore.” This decision follows years of criticism directed at the WHO by the former president, particularly during his first term in office, when he accused the organization of bias in favor of China during the global COVID-19 crisis.
The United States contributes approximately 18% of the WHO’s total funding, a significant portion that supports global health initiatives. With the withdrawal now official, the U.S. will cease its association with the organization after a 12-month notice period, as stipulated by international agreements. During this time, the country is expected to coordinate with the WHO to ensure a smooth transition for ongoing programs.
Global Reactions and Concerns
The WHO expressed regret over the United States’ decision, emphasizing the importance of international collaboration in addressing global health challenges. Tarik Jasarević, a spokesperson for the organization, urged constructive dialogue, saying, “We remain committed to working with all member states to promote and protect global health. We hope to engage in discussions that will address the concerns raised and continue our mission for the benefit of all.”
Key global donors, including Germany and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, have reaffirmed their support for the WHO’s initiatives. Germany’s health minister, Jens Spahn, stated, “Global health is a shared responsibility. We stand firmly with the WHO in its mission to combat disease and improve health equity.”
The withdrawal is expected to create funding gaps for several critical health programs, including those targeting tuberculosis, HIV/AIDS, and emergency health responses in vulnerable regions. Experts warn that the reduction in resources may hinder the organization’s ability to respond effectively to health crises.
U.S. Search for Alternatives
In the wake of this decision, the United States government has indicated plans to seek alternative partners to fill the void left by its departure from the WHO. According to senior administration officials, the U.S. aims to establish bilateral agreements and support private-sector initiatives to address global health issues. However, experts note that replicating the scope and influence of the WHO’s programs could prove challenging.
Dr. Samantha Reed, a global health policy expert, commented, “While alternative frameworks can provide localized solutions, the WHO’s extensive network and institutional knowledge are difficult to replace. This move risks fragmenting international health efforts at a time when collective action is most needed.”
Historical Context
This is not the first time the Trump administration has clashed with the WHO. During the COVID-19 pandemic, Trump accused the organization of being overly deferential to China and failing to act swiftly in containing the virus’s spread. In 2020, his administration temporarily froze funding to the organization before restoring it under public and congressional pressure. Today’s announcement marks the culmination of those longstanding tensions.
Implications for Global Health
The withdrawal of the United States from the WHO represents a significant shift in global health dynamics. As one of the largest financial contributors, the U.S. played a pivotal role in funding programs aimed at eradicating diseases, responding to health emergencies, and improving access to healthcare in low-income countries.
The global health community is now bracing for the potential fallout. Reduced funding could delay or disrupt life-saving initiatives, particularly in regions already grappling with limited resources. Additionally, the move raises questions about the future of multilateral cooperation in addressing pressing health challenges such as pandemics, vaccine distribution, and disease eradication.
While some countries and organizations have pledged to increase their contributions to fill the gap, it remains uncertain whether these efforts will be sufficient to compensate for the loss of U.S. support. The coming months are likely to see intense diplomatic efforts to address these challenges and mitigate the impact of this unprecedented policy shift.
As the world watches closely, the focus remains on how the United States and the international community will navigate this new chapter in global health governance.