The US intends to leave the World Health Organization. What will happen next?

Donald Trump’s plan withdraw United States before the World Health Organization (WHO). was met with horror in the field of public health.

Some have called one of the first executive orders of an American president “serious mistake“And”absolutely bad news“.

What is WHO doing?

WHO is United Nations Agency which aims to expand universal health care, coordinate responses to health crises such as pandemics, and place a broad emphasis on well living. It has no power to enforce health policy, but it influences policy around the world, especially in low-income countries.

WHO plays an imperative coordinating role in surveillance, response and policy on communicable and non-communicable diseases. In fact, infectious diseases require the most urgent global coordination. Unlike non-communicable diseases, infections can spread quickly from one country to another, just as Covid was spreading cause a pandemic.

We have a lot to thank WHO for, including: smallpox eradicationa feat that could not have been achieved without global coordination and leadership. He also played a leading role in the eradication of polio and HIV.

Why does the US want to withdraw?

The reasons for withdrawal switch on:

mishandling of the Covid-19… pandemic and other global health crises, failure to adopt urgently needed reforms, and failure to demonstrate independence from undue political influence by WHO Member States.

The implementing regulation also invokes disproportionate higher payments US reports to WHO compared to China. In 2024-25The United States contributed 22% of the organization’s mandatory funding from member states, compared with about 15% for China.

President Trump initiated a withdrawal from the WHO over similar concerns in 2020. However, in 2021, President Biden reversed this decision.

What will happen next?

The withdrawal may take effect in one year, and may require consent by the US Congress.

It’s unclear how this will play out, but it seems likely that the WHO will lose U.S. funding.

The US withdrawal may also be the final nail in the coffin of the WHO Pandemic Agreement, which: collapsed in 2024 when member states could not agree on the final design.

Trump’s executive order states that all negotiations for a pandemic deal will end. However, the order indicates that the United States will consider working with international partners to address global health.

USA Centers for Disease and Control (CDC) already has such international partners and could do this in practice. It already convenes, among others, global epidemic response training networkwhat could constitute a model. However, moving in this direction requires refinement, as is the case with another goal of the up-to-date US government reduce or discontinue international aid.

WHO also convenes a number of expert committees and networks of reference laboratories. One of many networks of laboratories dealing with influenza includes, among others: over 50 laboratories in 41 Member States. This includes five “super labs,” one of which is located at the CDC. It is unclear what would happen to such networks, many of which have major American components.

With bird flu threatening to mutate and become a human pandemic, these global networks are playing a key role in monitoring pandemic threats.

WHO expert committees guide global health policy on a number of issues. WHO may accredit laboratories in third countries and experts from third countries may serve on WHO expert committees. However, it is unclear how this will play out, especially for U.S. government-funded labs and experts who are employees of the U.S. government.

Another potential impact of a U.S. withdrawal is the potential for other powerful member states to gain more influence once they leave the EU. This could lead to restrictions on US experts serving on WHO committees or otherwise collaborating with the organization.

Although the United States’ withdrawal will result in a loss of funding for WHO, member states contribute approximately 20% of WHO’s budget. The organization is funded by donations from other organizations (including private companies and philanthropic organizations), which make up the remainder 80%. Thus, US withdrawal may raise the influence of these other organizations.

A chance for reform

The Trump administration is not alone in criticizing the way the WHO has handled the outbreak of Covid-19 and other infectious diseases.

For example WHO agreed with the Chinese authorities in early January 2020, there was no evidence that the “mystery pneumonia” in Wuhan was contagious, when in fact it was it’s probably already spreading for months. It was a costly mistake.

There has been criticism of the WHO delays in declaring a pandemicstating Covid was not in the air (despite evidence to the contrary). There was also criticism of the investigation into The beginnings of Covidincluding conflicts of interest in the investigative team.

WHO was also criticized for service Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa a decade ago. At lastthis led to a number of reformsbut it’s probably not enough.

More changes needed

Expert in the field of public health in the USA Ashish Jha supports WHO reform. Jha, who is dean of Brown University’s School of Public Health and former coordinator of the White House response to the pandemic, says the organization has an unclear mission, overly broad remits, tender governance and often prioritizes the political sensitivities of member states.

He proposes that WHO narrows its focus to a smaller number of areas, guided by the key to responding to the epidemic. This would allow for more effective exploit of reduced resources.

Instead of withdrawing from the WHO, in his opinion it would be better if the United States remained a member and stimulated such reform.

Without reform, it is possible that other countries will follow the United States’ lead, especially if electorates put pressure on governments to raise domestic spending.

WHO he asked US to reconsider withdrawal. However, the organization may need to consider further reforms in lithe of the possibility of future negotiations. This is the best way to solve it.