Trump Completes US Withdrawal From WHO: Here’s What It Means and Why Experts Are Worried

The United States has officially completed its withdrawal from the World Health Organization (WHO) under former president Donald Trump’s directive, marking a historic and controversial break from the global health body. The move has reignited debate among policymakers, health experts, and international partners about the future of global health cooperation and America’s role in responding to pandemics and health emergencies.

While supporters argue the decision restores national sovereignty and accountability, critics warn it could weaken global disease surveillance and leave the US more vulnerable to future health crises.

What the Withdrawal Means

The withdrawal formally ends US membership in the WHO, cutting off both funding and participation in decision-making processes. Prior to the exit, the United States was the largest single contributor to the organization, providing significant financial support and technical expertise.

As a result:

The US no longer has a vote in WHO assemblies

American officials lose direct access to WHO coordination mechanisms

Funding gaps may emerge in global health programs

The move represents a dramatic shift from decades of bipartisan support for international health collaboration.

Why Trump Pushed for the Exit

Donald Trump first announced plans to withdraw from the WHO during his presidency, citing dissatisfaction with the organization’s handling of the COVID-19 pandemic. He accused the WHO of being too deferential to China and failing to act decisively in the early stages of the outbreak.

Supporters of the withdrawal argue that:

The WHO lacks transparency and accountability

US funds were not delivering sufficient returns

National health policy should not be influenced by international bodies

They contend that the US can pursue bilateral health partnerships without relying on a centralized global institution.

Why Health Experts Are Alarmed

Public health experts, however, have expressed deep concern about the consequences of the withdrawal. The WHO plays a central role in coordinating responses to infectious disease outbreaks, setting health standards, and sharing critical data between countries.

Experts warn that leaving the organization could:

Reduce early warning capabilities for pandemics

Limit access to global disease surveillance networks

Weaken coordinated responses to emerging health threats

Dr. global health specialists emphasize that viruses do not respect borders, making international cooperation essential.

Impact on Global Disease Surveillance

One of the WHO’s most critical functions is monitoring outbreaks worldwide and alerting member states to emerging risks. Without direct involvement, the US may receive information more slowly or through indirect channels.

This delay could prove costly in fast-moving health emergencies, where early detection and response are crucial to saving lives and minimizing economic disruption.

Analysts note that during past outbreaks, including Ebola and Zika, WHO coordination played a key role in preventing wider spread.

Consequences for Developing Countries

The US withdrawal also raises concerns for lower-income nations that rely heavily on WHO programs for:

Vaccination campaigns

Maternal and child health services

Disease prevention and treatment

American funding helped support these initiatives, and its absence may strain already limited resources. Experts worry that weakened global health systems could allow diseases to spread more easily—eventually affecting wealthier nations as well.

America’s Global Standing at Stake

Diplomats and analysts suggest the move could diminish US influence on the world stage. By leaving the WHO, the US relinquishes a leadership role in shaping international health policy and standards.

This vacuum may be filled by other major powers, potentially shifting the balance of influence within global health governance.

Critics argue that disengagement could undermine America’s soft power and its ability to build coalitions during global crises.

Domestic Political Reaction

The withdrawal has sparked strong reactions within the US. Supporters see it as a fulfillment of Trump’s “America First” agenda, asserting that US taxpayer money should be prioritized for domestic needs.

Opponents, including many medical associations and public health leaders, argue that the decision is short-sighted and politically motivated. They warn that long-term health security depends on cooperation, not isolation.

Several lawmakers have called for future administrations to reconsider the decision.

Can the US Replace WHO Functions?

Some proponents of withdrawal argue the US can independently manage global health risks through agencies such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

While the CDC remains a world-class institution, experts caution that no single country—regardless of resources—can replicate the WHO’s global reach and coordination capacity.

Effective pandemic response, they argue, requires shared data, trust, and collaboration across borders.

Looking Ahead

The long-term impact of the US exit will depend on how both Washington and the WHO adapt. The organization is already seeking alternative funding sources, while US health agencies may attempt to build new international partnerships.

However, experts stress that fragmented systems are inherently less effective than unified ones when confronting global threats.

Conclusion

The completion of the US withdrawal from the World Health Organization marks a pivotal moment in global health governance. While supporters frame the move as a stand for independence and reform, experts warn it could weaken pandemic preparedness and reduce America’s influence in shaping global health responses.

In an era defined by interconnected risks, the decision raises a fundamental question: Can any nation truly protect its health in isolation? For many in the global health community, the answer remains a worrying no.