The United States' decision to withdraw from the World Health Organization (WHO), initiated by former President Donald Trump, has sparked global concern over the potential consequences for global health security, particularly in third-world countries. This controversial move, rooted in grievances over funding and the handling of the COVID-19 pandemic, threatens to undermine decades of progress in public health and weaken the global response to future health crises.
Donald Trump accused the WHO of mishandling the COVID-19 pandemic and alleged it was complicit in China’s efforts to mislead the global community about the virus's origins. "World Health ripped us off; everybody rips off the United States. It’s not going to happen anymore," Trump declared, emphasizing the disproportionate financial contributions of the US compared to other nations. According to his administration, the US contributed approximately $160 million to $815 million annually over the past decade, far exceeding China’s contributions despite its larger population.
The executive order detailed several grievances, including the WHO’s failure to implement reforms, its alleged susceptibility to political influence, and the lack of transparency in its operations. Trump also criticized the WHO for its response to COVID-19, asserting it failed to take decisive action to mitigate the pandemic's spread.
The US has been one of the largest donors to the WHO, contributing significantly to its $2-3 billion annual budget. These funds support critical initiatives, including immunization programs, maternal and child health, and the fight against diseases such as polio and malaria. Without US funding, these programs are at risk of stagnation, particularly in Africa and other developing regions, which rely heavily on WHO support for vaccinations and health services.
Philanthropic efforts by individuals such as Bill Gates and Warren Buffett have played a significant role in addressing global health challenges. Through organizations like the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, billions of dollars have been funneled into vaccine development, disease eradication, and health infrastructure in underprivileged regions. While philanthropy can mitigate some of the financial gaps left by the US withdrawal, experts caution it is not a sustainable substitute for government funding.
The WHO’s mandate includes coordinating responses to health emergencies, providing technical assistance to low-income countries, and conducting research to prevent and manage diseases. Experts warn that the absence of US funding and expertise could cripple these efforts, particularly in regions like Africa, where health systems are already fragile.
Dr. Tom Frieden, president, and CEO of Resolve to Save Lives, expressed concerns about the withdrawal's impact on global health security, stating, "Withdrawing from WHO not only cuts crucial funding from the agency, but it also surrenders our role as a global health leader and silences America's voice in critical decisions affecting global health security."
Lawrence Gostin, director of the WHO Collaborating Centre on Global Health Law at Georgetown University, emphasized that the loss of US support could weaken epidemic surveillance and response capabilities, increasing the likelihood of unchecked disease outbreaks.
In response to the US decision, the WHO released a statement expressing regret, highlighting the longstanding partnership between the US and the organization. "Together, we ended smallpox, and together we have brought polio to the brink of eradication," the statement read. It also underlines the critical role the US has played in shaping global health policies and urged for a reconsideration of the withdrawal.
Critics of the withdrawal argue that reform, rather than abandonment, is the appropriate response to perceived shortcomings within the WHO. The Biden administration reversed Trump’s initial attempt to leave the organization in 2021, emphasizing a science-based approach to global health security. However, Trump’s renewed efforts to distance the US from the WHO, if successful, could have far-reaching implications for global health initiatives.
As the US contemplates its role in global health governance, the world watches with apprehension. The withdrawal process, which requires Congressional approval, the fulfillment of financial obligations, and a one-year notice period, provides a window for dialogue and potential compromise.
For countries like Nigeria, the stakes are high. The WHO has been instrumental in combating diseases, providing vaccinations, and supporting public health systems. The loss of US support could strain these efforts, highlighting the need for increased regional cooperation and investment in health infrastructure.
The US withdrawal from the WHO marks a monumental moment in global health diplomacy. While the Trump administration’s criticisms of the organization highlight legitimate concerns about transparency and efficiency, the decision to withdraw threatens to dismantle decades of progress in global health. As nations grapple with the lingering effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, the need for unity and collaboration has never been more critical. Whether the US reconsiders its stance or pursues alternative global health partnerships, the consequences of its actions will be felt worldwide, particularly in the vulnerable populations that rely on the WHO for survival.
Written by Daniel Okonkwo For Profile International Human Rights Advocate.
 |
Comments