In July 2020, the Trump administration officially announced that the United States would withdraw from the World Health Organization (WHO).
This announcement was more than just a diplomatic move—it sent shockwaves through the international community.
Amid the global spread of COVID-19, the decision of the WHO’s largest financial contributor to sever ties with the organization was a major turning point for global health governance.
Years later, in January 2025, President Trump once again declared the U.S. withdrawal from the WHO upon taking office, signaling a continued diplomatic stance of distancing from international organizations.
This decision stemmed from deep-rooted distrust of the WHO, dissatisfaction with financial burdens, and concerns over China’s growing influence within the organization.
Interestingly, the U.S. has remained a member of the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO), WHO’s regional body for the Americas—highlighting the complexity of its global health engagement.
This article explores the sequence of events and the domestic and international factors that influenced the U.S. decision to leave the WHO.
It also examines global reactions and expert analysis to assess the broader impact on international health systems and what the future may hold.
We take a closer look at how this U.S. policy shift may reshape global cooperation in health.
{tocify} $title={Table of Contents}Timeline and Background of the Withdrawal
The sudden announcement of WHO withdrawal by the Trump administration during the unprecedented COVID-19 pandemic shocked both the domestic and global audience.
This section presents a chronological overview of the decision-making process, alongside key global developments that framed the situation.
Official Announcement and Timing
Media coverage of a potential U.S. withdrawal began around May 2020, and in July, the Trump administration formally notified the United Nations of its intent to exit the WHO, with the withdrawal scheduled to take effect a year later.
This bold move, taken during a rapidly escalating pandemic, was seen as a significant shift in America’s international health policy.
As the WHO’s largest financial supporter at the time, the U.S. withdrawal raised serious questions about the organization’s capabilities and credibility.
Although the withdrawal was reversed following a change in administration, President Trump reinstated the decision immediately upon his return to office on January 20, 2025, signing an executive order on his first day.
This action underscored a long-term strategic shift in U.S. foreign policy, aiming to reassess its involvement in international institutions.
Underlying this decision were criticisms of the WHO’s pandemic response, domestic opposition to the scale of U.S. funding, and growing geopolitical tension with China.
Notably, the U.S. has maintained its membership in PAHO, suggesting that this move targets the WHO’s central governance rather than international health cooperation as a whole.
In this light, the decision reflects a form of protest against the WHO’s operations and governance, while leaving room for future negotiations or reforms.
Overall, this series of events has sparked renewed debate over the structure of global health systems and is set to have a lasting impact on future pandemic response and global health strategy.
Connection to Major Global Events
The U.S. withdrawal from the WHO came at a time when the world was demanding unprecedented levels of international cooperation to combat COVID-19.
Announcing withdrawal at such a crucial moment shocked many nations and was widely interpreted as a move symbolizing "division over unity" by global media.
Countries like Germany and France responded by increasing their financial support for the WHO and stepping up collaborative research and vaccine assistance efforts.
Germany’s Health Minister Jens Spahn stated, “What we need now is not withdrawal, but stronger international institutions,” and the European Union stood united on this stance.
The Japanese government also expressed support for strengthening the WHO and, during the 2025 G7 Summit, the topic of WHO reform and stable funding became a major agenda item.
Experts also warned that the U.S. withdrawal could lead to reduced global influence and potential isolation, especially as China and the EU expand their roles within the WHO.
With the world in a phase of geopolitical realignment, the U.S. decision has become a defining moment that may reshape the future of global diplomacy.
Trump Administration's Claims and Background
The United States' decision to withdraw from the WHO was not just driven by temporary dissatisfaction or diplomatic maneuvering. It reflected the Trump administration’s deeper foreign policy philosophy and approach to domestic politics.
This section explores the criticisms the Trump administration leveled against the WHO and the ideological underpinnings behind those claims.
It also highlights how U.S.-China relations and views toward international organizations were intertwined in this decision.
Dissatisfaction with Pandemic Response
The Trump administration strongly criticized the WHO's early response to the global COVID-19 outbreak and the delayed release of vital information.
In particular, the administration questioned the WHO’s credibility, accusing it of failing to critically assess information from China and contributing to the global health crisis.
There was a growing perception that the WHO had a pro-China bias, citing its response to the delayed acknowledgment of human-to-human transmission by Chinese authorities and the rejection of Taiwan's observer participation.
Concerns were also raised about the WHO's lack of operational transparency and the disproportionate influence of specific nations on its governance.
These concerns were echoed by private institutions. For example, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation warned that U.S. withdrawal from the WHO could have a severe impact on global public health, stating that “international cooperation is essential under any circumstances.”
The Foundation, which had worked closely with the WHO on vaccine distribution and disease control, emphasized that continued U.S. involvement was vital for solving global challenges.
America First Perspective
The Trump administration’s "America First" slogan was more than a catchphrase—it represented a firm foreign policy stance that questioned U.S. financial contributions and membership in international institutions from the ground up.
Between 2022 and 2023, the U.S. contributed approximately $1.28 billion to the WHO, accounting for about 14.5% of the total budget (Source: Swissinfo: U.S. Funding Contributions), making it the largest single donor.
Despite this, frustration grew within the administration over what it perceived as a lack of corresponding influence in the organization’s decision-making processes.
The administration harbored strong distrust toward the WHO's early pandemic response, particularly its perceived acceptance of unverified information from China regarding COVID-19.
As the virus spread rapidly across the U.S., leading to hundreds of thousands of deaths, the dominant view within the administration became: “To protect American lives, we must distance ourselves from international bodies driven by flawed information.”
Furthermore, the administration viewed international organizations as limiting national sovereignty and undermining U.S. diplomatic and economic independence.
The decision to withdraw from the WHO embodied these beliefs and served as a symbolic action to assert “national interest over international cooperation.”
Relationship with China
Amid escalating U.S.-China tensions, the Trump administration intensified efforts to counter Chinese influence through various diplomatic and policy measures.
This included a reassessment of the U.S. role and influence in international organizations, with the WHO withdrawal being part of this broader geopolitical strategy.
The administration expressed strong concern over the growing imbalance in influence, where the U.S. contributed significant funding while China's relative influence appeared to be rising.
Some officials viewed international institutions as succumbing to China’s political agenda and considered withdrawal or suspension of funding—as seen with the WHO—as tools to counter that influence.
Conservative U.S. media and think tanks also repeatedly criticized the WHO’s governance and decision-making processes as lacking fairness, influencing the administration’s foreign policy direction.
Ultimately, the U.S. withdrawal from the WHO was positioned as an extension of its confrontational stance toward China and as a symbolic step in redefining America’s global role.
The Role of WHO and Points of Criticism
Underlying the Trump administration’s decision to withdraw was also criticism of the WHO’s fundamental operations and effectiveness.
Understanding the organization’s mission—and the reasons it became a target of scrutiny—is essential to making sense of this event.
This section outlines the core functions of the WHO and organizes the key issues raised by the Trump administration in its critiques.
The Core Mission of the WHO
Since its establishment in 1948 as a specialized agency of the United Nations, the World Health Organization (WHO) has addressed global health challenges that transcend national borders.
Its core mission is to protect public health, reduce healthcare disparities, and prevent the spread of infectious diseases.
Its wide-ranging activities include implementing the International Health Regulations (IHR) to enable surveillance and rapid response to new and existing diseases, offering technical support for national health policies, and promoting global vaccination campaigns.
In times of emergencies such as pandemics or natural disasters, the WHO plays a leading role by declaring a "Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC)," encouraging countries to coordinate and act swiftly.
In crises like COVID-19 and Ebola, the WHO has been central in facilitating resource distribution, establishing equitable vaccine access through COVAX, and promoting transparent information sharing.
Thus, the WHO serves as a vital hub for international collaboration on public health challenges and remains a cornerstone of global health efforts.
Criticism from the Trump Administration
However, the Trump administration harshly criticized the WHO for what it perceived as political bias, particularly regarding the initial handling of COVID-19 and the uncritical acceptance of information from the Chinese government.
Some officials even claimed that “the WHO is under China’s influence,” a view echoed by conservative media outlets and political circles within the U.S.
Further institutional concerns were raised regarding the unequal voice among member states and the lack of transparency in how major financial contributors influence policy decisions.
Despite being the WHO’s largest donor, the United States reportedly felt it had limited influence in critical decision-making processes, fueling the rationale behind the withdrawal announcement.
These criticisms were not unique to the Trump administration. Other member states have also questioned the WHO’s credibility and governance, sparking ongoing global debates about the reform and reliability of international institutions.
Consequently, structural reform and increased transparency within the WHO are expected to remain key issues in the future of international governance.
Domestic and Global Reactions and Impacts
The U.S. withdrawal announcement from the WHO sent shockwaves around the world.
The move triggered a broad spectrum of responses from within the U.S. political and public spheres, as well as among global leaders and institutions.
This section explores how the decision was received by American politicians and citizens, the concerns raised by the international community, and its long-term implications.
Domestic Politics and Public Opinion
Among conservatives and Trump supporters, the decision to withdraw from the WHO was widely viewed as justified.
They believed the WHO favored China and acted against U.S. national interests, amplifying calls to reevaluate funding for international institutions.
Conversely, Democrats, healthcare professionals, academics, and frontline medical workers expressed strong opposition, arguing that U.S. collaboration with the WHO was essential for global pandemic containment.
Many emphasized the risks of withdrawing from initiatives like COVAX, which were critical for vaccine distribution and pandemic response.
There was also a growing expectation that a future administration would reverse the decision. Indeed, when the Biden administration took office in 2021, it formally announced the U.S. rejoining the WHO and reaffirmed a strong commitment to global health leadership.
This marked a symbolic policy shift, signaling to the world that "America is back" in international cooperation efforts.
International Reactions
Major nations and global institutions expressed serious concern over the U.S. decision to exit the WHO.
At the height of a global health crisis, the departure of the WHO’s largest financial contributor was seen as a blow to effective pandemic response.
The European Union issued a statement warning that solidarity and cooperation were essential in a time of global health emergency, calling the U.S. withdrawal ill-timed and inappropriate.
Germany, France, Canada, and other G7 countries also emphasized the importance of maintaining a unified global health infrastructure and urged the U.S. to stay involved.
The Japanese government shared concerns about WHO functionality but advocated for constructive reforms through continued engagement rather than withdrawal, aligning itself with a cooperative approach.
Additionally, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, a long-time contributor to global health initiatives, released a statement warning that the U.S. exit would severely impact vaccine supply chains and infectious disease control frameworks.
These reactions reflect fears that the absence of American leadership could create a vacuum in global health governance, prompting calls for new cooperative frameworks and even the emergence of alternative alliances without U.S. participation.
Long-Term Impact
If the U.S. withdrawal is finalized, it would result in the loss of approximately 15% of the WHO’s annual budget—funds that currently come from the United States. Such a move would significantly weaken the organization’s financial foundation.
As a result, essential initiatives such as global disease surveillance, vaccine research and development, and medical aid to low-income countries may face severe reductions or even complete suspension.
Beyond financial repercussions, the U.S. withdrawal would also create a leadership vacuum and erode trust in multilateral cooperation surrounding global health.
Weaker policy coordination between the U.S. and other countries could reduce global capacity to address cross-border threats such as pandemics and climate-related health risks, ultimately creating a serious fracture in the international health system.
Additionally, it could hinder responses to future emerging diseases and ongoing efforts to combat existing illnesses like HIV, malaria, and tuberculosis. Interruptions in immunization programs and pharmaceutical supply chains could pose a long-term threat to global health security.
This situation raises a crucial question: just how indispensable continued trust in and participation with the WHO is when facing global health threats.
Expert Perspectives and Future Outlook
The U.S. withdrawal from the WHO sparked wide-ranging debate among experts in global politics and public health.
Many specialists have issued warnings about the risks and far-reaching implications of this decision for international collaboration.
This section highlights expert analysis and explores the future of international organizations and possible paths for reform.
Expert Analysis
Political scientists and health experts alike have raised concerns about the multifaceted risks posed by the U.S. withdrawal.
Rapid information-sharing and evidence-based decision-making are critical in disease control, and the absence of a key player like the U.S. could severely undermine global coordination efforts.
Dr. Lisa Jones, a public health expert at the University of Washington, stated, “U.S. withdrawal could significantly reduce the accuracy and early-warning capabilities of global disease surveillance systems.”
She and others also noted that severing ties with the WHO could deprive U.S. research institutions of access to global treatment guidelines and clinical data, potentially causing delays and confusion in medical response on the ground.
Many experts believe that if a pandemic persists, the country that decided to withdraw—namely the U.S.—may ultimately pay the highest price.
Without international collaboration, the U.S. could face disadvantages in securing vaccines and other medical resources through systems like COVAX, placing its population at higher health risk.
Future of International Cooperation and Reform
The U.S. withdrawal has also prompted deeper questions about the WHO’s very existence and function.
Public skepticism has grown around the agency’s neutrality and scientific credibility, particularly concerning the origin of COVID-19, early response failures, and uncertainties around vaccine safety and rollout strategies.
Some have criticized the WHO for being vulnerable to the influence of powerful nations or wealthy foundations, raising issues about transparency and accountability.
This skepticism has been fueled by public pushback against mass vaccination policies, concerns over side effects, and suspicions about close ties between governments and the WHO.
That’s why reform of international institutions must go beyond basic operational improvements and address more fundamental questions: Why do they exist, and who do they serve?
For the WHO to rebuild global trust and truly operate in the public interest, structural reform and an ethical redefinition of its role are essential.
Conclusion
The U.S. decision to withdraw from the WHO during a global pandemic highlighted both structural vulnerabilities in the international system and the limitations of global cooperation.
The Trump administration’s criticism—particularly regarding the WHO’s early handling of COVID-19 and its perceived bias toward certain powerful countries like China—has reignited debate over neutrality and accountability in international institutions.
At the same time, global health challenges cannot be tackled by individual countries alone. Without coordinated action, international health strategies risk becoming ineffective.
The U.S. withdrawal has implications far beyond symbolism. It creates tangible gaps in funding, technical capacity, and leadership, all of which impact the public health systems of other nations.
This development should be seen as a turning point for international institutions and the way countries collaborate multilaterally.
Moving forward, attention will focus on changes in U.S. leadership, internal reforms at the WHO, and the reconfiguration of global health partnerships prompted by the pandemic.
We hope readers will look beyond political maneuvering and pay attention to the real-world implications on health systems and everyday lives. A deeper understanding of how health and politics are intricately connected is more important than ever.
Post a Comment