In a bold and significant move, the United States has officially withdrawn from the World Health Organization (WHO), a decision announced by the Trump administration on Thursday. This action comes exactly one year after President Donald Trump initiated the withdrawal process by signing an executive order.
The announcement was made jointly by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Department of State. A senior official from HHS stated that the WHO has "strayed from its core mission" and has acted against U.S. interests in protecting its citizens on numerous occasions.
Much of the criticism from the HHS centers around the WHO's handling of the COVID-19 pandemic. The department claims that the organization delayed declaring COVID-19 a global health emergency and unfairly criticized Trump's early travel restrictions from certain countries during the onset of the pandemic.
Furthermore, the HHS raised concerns regarding financial contributions, pointing out that other nations, like China, have contributed less to the WHO than the U.S., despite the substantial financial support the U.S. provides. They also noted the absence of an American director-general in the organization's history, which they believe is disproportionate given America's financial input.
However, this withdrawal has not gone unnoticed by public health experts, who argue that it could put the U.S. at a disadvantage in responding to health emergencies both domestically and internationally. Ronald Nahass, president of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, voiced his concern, stating, "The U.S. withdrawal from the World Health Organization is a shortsighted and misguided abandonment of our global health commitments. Global cooperation and communication are critical to keep our own citizens protected because germs do not respect borders."
Nahass further emphasized that leaving the WHO would undermine U.S. capabilities to monitor emerging health threats like Ebola, as well as to manage recurring influenza outbreaks. He argued that collaboration on a global scale is not merely beneficial but essential for public health, asserting, "Withdrawing from the World Health Organization is scientifically reckless. It fails to acknowledge the fundamental natural history of infectious diseases. Global cooperation is not a luxury; it is a biological necessity."
Despite these criticisms, the senior HHS official assured that the U.S. will maintain its leadership role in global public health, highlighting that there are over 2,000 staff members currently deployed in 63 countries and that the U.S. has established bilateral agreements with numerous nations.
To address the potential gaps created by leaving the WHO, the official mentioned that plans are already in place to collaborate with various organizations on surveillance, diagnostics, and responses to outbreaks.
According to United Nations guidelines, a country wishing to exit the WHO must provide a year's notice and settle any outstanding dues. The U.S. provided such notice when Trump signed the executive order. However, the U.S. reportedly owes more than $270 million to the WHO for the 2024-2025 period, as per UN records. The HHS official contended that the U.S. is not obligated to pay under the WHO's Constitution, which dates back to 1948.
A spokesperson for the WHO remarked that the withdrawal will be discussed in the upcoming Executive Board meeting, with actions to follow based on guidance from governing bodies. This meeting is set for early February.
Currently, the HHS has stated there are no intentions to rejoin the WHO or participate as an observer. Next month, the WHO is organizing a meeting focused on flu vaccinations, an event that historically sees significant U.S. involvement, especially in analyzing viral samples. However, it's still uncertain whether the U.S. will choose to participate.
