US Set to Quit World Health Organization: Global Health at a Crossroads as Trump Administration Moves Forward

The United States prepares to exit the World Health Organization.

The United States is officially set to withdraw from the World Health Organization (WHO) on Thursday, January 22, a move that has already triggered intense debate across global health, legal, and political circles. The decision, initiated by President Donald Trump, the current President of the United States of America, has drawn sharp criticism from health experts, lawmakers, and international partners who warn that the withdrawal could have serious consequences for both the U.S. and the rest of the world. As the world continues to battle emerging diseases, climate-related health threats, and fragile healthcare systems in developing nations, the timing and impact of America’s exit from the WHO raise urgent questions about global health leadership, legal obligations, and future international cooperation.

President Donald Trump announced the United States’ intention to leave the World Health Organization on the first day of his presidency in 2025, signing an executive order that set the withdrawal process in motion. According to the administration, the decision is rooted in long-standing frustrations with how the WHO handled major global health crises, particularly the COVID-19 pandemic. A spokesperson for the U.S. State Department accused the WHO of failing to properly contain, manage, and transparently share critical health information, arguing that these shortcomings ultimately cost the United States trillions of dollars in economic losses.
“The American people have paid more than enough to this organization,” the spokesperson said, adding that the financial burden placed on the U.S. far outweighs any benefits received. As a result, President Trump has ordered an immediate pause on all future U.S. government funding, support, and resource transfers to the WHO.

While the Trump administration insists it is acting in America’s best interest, legal experts argue that the withdrawal may be in direct violation of U.S. law.
Under existing legislation, the United States is required to:
1. Provide at least one year’s formal notice before leaving the WHO.

2. Pay all outstanding membership fees owed to the organization before the withdrawal becomes effective.

According to the WHO, the United States has not paid its assessed contributions for 2024 and 2025, with unpaid fees totaling approximately $260 million. Critics argue that proceeding with the exit without settling these obligations undermines both domestic law and international trust.
Lawrence Gostin, founding director of the O’Neill Institute for Global Health Law at Georgetown University, described the move as a “clear violation of U.S. law.”

“Legally, the United States should not be able to exit without meeting its financial and procedural obligations,” Gostin said. “But realistically, President Trump is highly likely to get away with it.”

The WHO has expressed deep concern over the United States’ decision, noting that Washington has historically been its largest single donor, contributing roughly 18 percent of the agency’s total budget.
With U.S. funding now halted, the organization is facing a severe budget crisis. In response, the WHO has already:

• Cut its senior management team by half
• Scaled back programs across multiple regions
• Announced plans to reduce its workforce by about 25 percent by mid-year

In a statement, the WHO said it has continued to cooperate with U.S. health agencies and share critical health data over the past year, despite political tensions. However, it remains unclear how future collaboration will function once the withdrawal is finalized.

WHO Director-General Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus has publicly appealed to the United States to rethink its decision, emphasizing the mutual benefits of global health cooperation.

“Withdrawing from the WHO is a loss for the United States, and it is a loss for the rest of the world,” Tedros said. “Global health security depends on collective action, not isolation.”

Tedros added that the WHO remains open to dialogue and hopes the U.S. will eventually return, noting that no country can fully protect itself from pandemics without international coordination.

Prominent philanthropist and global health advocate Bill Gates, chair of the Gates Foundation, has also weighed in on the issue. While acknowledging the administration’s firm stance, Gates expressed concern about the long-term implications.

“I don’t think the U.S. will be coming back to the WHO in the near future,” Gates said. “But the world absolutely needs the World Health Organization.”

Gates emphasized that the WHO plays a critical role in disease surveillance, vaccine distribution, and emergency response, functions that are difficult, if not impossible, to replicate through fragmented national efforts alone.

Public health experts around the world warn that the U.S. withdrawal could weaken global systems designed to detect, prevent, and respond to health threats, including pandemics, outbreaks, and antimicrobial resistance.
The WHO serves as a central coordinating body that:

• Monitors disease outbreaks across borders
• Shares scientific data and best practices
• Supports low-income countries with weak healthcare systems
• Coordinates international emergency responses

Without U.S. participation and funding, experts fear slower responses to outbreaks, reduced research capacity, and greater vulnerability to future pandemics.

The WHO’s Executive Board is expected to discuss the U.S. withdrawal and its financial implications during its February meeting. Member states will likely explore options to:

• Cover the funding gap left by the U.S.
• Restructure programs and priorities
• Strengthen alternative partnerships

At the same time, the decision could encourage other countries to reassess their own commitments to international institutions, potentially reshaping the future of global health governance.
See Also... Iran Warns of War If Supreme Leader Is Attacked as Tensions With the United States Escalate
The United States’ decision to exit the World Health Organization marks one of the most significant shifts in global health policy in decades. Supporters of the move argue it protects American interests and prevents further financial waste. Critics, however, see it as a dangerous retreat from global leadership at a time when cooperation is more important than ever. As diseases continue to cross borders with ease, the question remains: Can the world effectively protect itself without the active involvement of its most powerful nations?
Whether the U.S. ultimately reconsiders or charts a new path outside the WHO, the consequences of this decision will be felt far beyond Washington, shaping global health security for years to come.

 By Primelineinfo