- Trump once again ordered the US to withdraw from the World Health Organization upon taking office for a second time, accusing the UN body of mismanagement and having 'ripped off' Washington
- The US is the WHO's largest donor, contributing 22% of its $6.8B budget for 2024-2025, raising fears that the withdrawal could disrupt health programs worldwide
- 'Together, we ended smallpox, and together we have brought polio to the brink of eradication ... American institutions have contributed to and benefited from membership in WHO,' says WHO spokesperson Tarik Jasarevic
GENEVA
On his first day back in the Oval Office, President Donald Trump revived his long-standing feud with the World Health Organization (WHO), signing an executive order to pull the US out of the global health body.
The decision, reminiscent of similar actions during Trump’s first term in 2020, takes on renewed significance in light of current global health challenges. It marks a dramatic shift for Washington, which has historically been the WHO’s largest donor and a key partner in international health initiatives.
Trump has long criticized the WHO, accusing it of mismanaging global health efforts and failing to adequately represent American interests. His stance has not wavered.
World Health ripped us off. Everybody rips off the United States, and that’s it. It's not going to happen anymore," Trump said at the signing of the executive order.
The order cited the WHO’s “mishandling of the COVID-19 pandemic” which originated in China, as well as its “failure to adopt urgently needed reforms” and “inability to demonstrate independence from the inappropriate political influence of WHO member states.”
This criticism mirrored grievances Trump expressed in 2020 during his first term, when he also sought to exit the WHO, citing its handling of the COVID-19 pandemic. He accused the organization of failing to adequately obtain, vet, and share information about the virus promptly and transparently.
He also claimed that, through mid-January 2020, the body echoed Chinese authorities' misleading assertions that there was no human-to-human transmission of the virus, despite mounting evidence.
Alleging that the WHO displayed “an alarming lack of independence” from China, he criticized its opposition to travel restrictions, saying it “actually fought” US efforts to limit the spread of the virus.
Trump's initial bid to leave the WHO was reversed under President Joe Biden, but this renewed action underscores enduring political tensions between the US and the UN health body.
Critics argue the move reflects a broader shift toward prioritizing domestic policies over global cooperation.
The US' role in WHO and what its withdrawal might mean
The US' prominent role within the WHO makes this decision even more consequential.
Washington has served as a cornerstone of the WHO since its founding in 1948. As the organization’s largest single donor, the US contributed 18% of the WHO’s 2023 budget, amounting to hundreds of millions of dollars annually. These funds have supported critical initiatives, from eradicating diseases to responding to health emergencies in underserved regions.
Trump's order also took issue with the US' leading role in funding the organization, calling Washington's financial contributions “unfairly onerous” and “far out of proportion with other countries’ assessed payments.” Over the past decade, Washington’s member dues and voluntary funding far surpassed those of other member states.
The WHO’s budget for 2024-2025 stands at $6.8 billion, with US contributions accounting for 22% of the mandatory funding — far outpacing any other donor.
"Together, we ended smallpox, and together we have brought polio to the brink of eradication," WHO spokesperson Tarik Jasarevic said in response to the US' decision. "American institutions have contributed to and benefited from membership in WHO."
If the withdrawal proceeds, its effects could ripple across the global health landscape, weakening international coordination, shifting alliances, and impacting Americans in return.
The sudden funding shortfall could jeopardize key health programs such as vaccination campaigns, disease surveillance, and emergency responses — many of which depend heavily on US support.
The departure could also weaken international coordination against global health threats, particularly in low-income regions reliant on WHO assistance.
While other countries and private donors might step in to bridge the financial and leadership void, this shift could alter the agency’s priorities, potentially steering focus away from areas where US influence once played a key role.
To mitigate the impact, the WHO is planning an investment round to diversify its funding base, seeking more sustainable contributions from member states and private entities, Jasarevic said.
Domestically, the US could also face consequences. A withdrawal might leave Americans more vulnerable to global health emergencies, as reduced international cooperation could hinder efforts to contain outbreaks before they cross borders.
What happens next?
The withdrawal process is not immediate. It requires formal notification to the UN, followed by a transition period of up to a year, according to the WHO.
Following the signing of the executive order, the WHO expressed hope that the US would reconsider its decision, highlighting decades of partnership and shared achievements.
In the meantime, the organization plans to diversify its funding sources to maintain stability.
As the world grapples with urgent health challenges — ranging from pandemics and climate-related diseases to healthcare inequities — the US withdrawal raises critical questions about the future of global health governance.
It remains unclear whether the WHO will be able to sustain its mission without its largest donor or if the decision will prompt other nations to re-evaluate their commitments to multilateral health cooperation.
The coming months will shed light on the repercussions of this dramatic move — not just for the WHO, but for the global health landscape as a whole.
