Donald Trump’s transition team is reportedly preparing to announce the United States’ withdrawal from the World Health Organization (WHO) on January 20, the day of his inauguration. This significant move is raising alarms among health experts, who warn it could have catastrophic effects on global health efforts, especially as the world grapples with crises like the COVID-19 pandemic.
According to reports from the Financial Times, members of Trump's team shared these intentions with experts, indicating their plan to announce the withdrawal officially during the president-elect’s January 20 inauguration. Such a departure would strip the WHO of its largest source of funding, which provides about 16 percent of its total budget, severely damaging its capability to respond to public health emergencies.
Lawrence Gostin, professor of global health at Georgetown Law, has expressed deep concern over the potential impact of this decision. He remarked, “America is going to leave a huge vacuum in global health financing and leadership. I see no one who is going to fill the breach,” emphasizing the dire consequences for international health governance.
This move to withdraw is not isolated. During his previous administration, Trump initiated the process to leave the WHO as COVID-19 gained momentum, accusing the agency of being under China’s control. Although this process was not completed, experts highlight the accelerated interest from Trump’s current team to finalize this transaction. Ashish Jha, Biden’s former White House COVID response coordinator and dean at Brown University’s school of public health, noted, “There are lots of people who are going to be part of the inner circle of the administration who do not trust the WHO and want to symbolically show on day one they are out.”
Experts expressed frustration at the idea of withdrawal, arguing it could impede the United States' influence on global health discussions and actions. Jha pointed out the significance of WHO engagement: “If you’re not engaged in these institutions, you do not have ears to the ground when the next outbreak happens.” Without the U.S., the WHO could face severe operational limitations, potentially leading to “very lean years for the WHO,” according to Gostin, who warned about the possibility of significant reductions to its scientific workforce.
Further complicates matters, the appointment of Robert F. Kennedy Jr., known for his anti-vaccine stance, as health secretary suggests Trump may continue a contrarian approach to mainstream health and scientific guidance during his upcoming administration. Kennedy’s presence could possibly exacerbate skepticism toward health institutions, stent out any efforts to regain trust and partnership between the U.S. and the WHO.
The timing of the planned withdrawal appears to be dictated both by internal administration dynamics and by the symbolic messaging of reversing Biden’s own inauguration-day efforts, which reinstated U.S. relations with the agency. Critics, including Gostin, are concerned about the global ramifications: “It would not be a smart move as withdrawal would cede leadership to China.”
The losses engendered by this decision could be extensive, limiting the WHO's resources for vaccine development and distribution and hindering responses to future health emergencies. Jha cautioned, “It’s not just about funding; it’s also about leadership, which is just as important.”
While Trump’s team seems divided on the approach—some advocating for immediate withdrawal and others hoping to reform the organization from within—several members align with the former stance, underscoring the contentious nature of public health discourse within the incoming administration.
Experts anticipate quick action on this front, with many feeling this move reflects broader anti-establishment sentiments surrounding mainstream health organizations and science. The stark choice facing the new administration encapsulates deep partisan divides around health policy and international cooperation, grappling with the pressing realities of public health needs globally.
With these discussions surrounding withdrawal looming, the global health community watches closely, apprehensive about the fallout. The potential unraveling of U.S. involvement could unravel years of partnership and leave substantial gaps as countries begin to face their own health emergencies, without the U.S.’s active collaboration.
Overall, the ramifications of this decision could reshape international health collaboration significantly, emphasizing the necessity of cooperative structures to tackle global health challenges head-on.
