The United States’ relationship with global health organizations, particularly the World Health Organization (WHO), has been a topic of considerable debate and policy shift, especially with the implementation of ‘America First’ policies. This article delves into the implications of the US withdrawal from the WHO, examining the motivations behind this decision and its broader impact on global health. It addresses the WHO’s functions, funding mechanisms, and the critical health challenges facing the international community. It also scrutinizes the potential consequences of reduced US involvement, emphasizing the need for collaborative efforts to ensure global health security.
US Withdrawal from the WHO: An ‘America First’ Approach
The US withdrawal from the World Health Organization (WHO) has been a contentious issue, particularly driven by the ‘America First’ foreign policy. Former President Trump initiated this move, asserting that the WHO was disadvantageous to the US. This decision, however, was reversed by President Biden upon assuming office. Understanding the dynamics between US foreign policy and global health requires examining the WHO’s operational framework and funding.
Trump’s primary argument centered on the belief that the WHO was not serving US interests and was unfairly influenced by other nations. He also criticized the WHO’s handling of the COVID-19 pandemic, alleging a slow and inadequate response. By prioritizing American interests, the withdrawal aimed to reallocate resources and assert US sovereignty in global affairs.
The withdrawal process, initiated in July 2020, was halted by the change in administration in January 2021, highlighting the fluctuating nature of US commitment to international health bodies. This move underscored the importance of examining the WHO’s role, funding, and the specific public health concerns facing both the US and the world.
What Does the WHO Do?
Established in 1948, the World Health Organization (WHO) has a broad mandate encompassing various critical global health functions. Its primary missions include protecting the world from health emergencies, promoting universal health coverage, and addressing the determinants of well-being. The WHO provides essential support to member states in strengthening their health systems and responding to health crises.
One of the key functions of the WHO is to set and maintain international health standards and guidelines. Through the International Health Regulations (IHR), the WHO provides a legally binding framework for member states to prevent, protect against, and control the international spread of diseases. These regulations enable coordinated responses to global health threats.
The WHO also plays a crucial role in promoting universal health coverage. It supports countries in training health workers, advising on labor policies, and improving access to essential medicines and health products. Despite these efforts, billions of people worldwide still lack full access to essential health services. The WHO continues to work towards ensuring equitable access to healthcare for all.
Additionally, the WHO addresses broader well-being issues by studying social determinants of health, promoting mental health, and advocating for an “all health” approach in policymaking. These efforts aim to create healthier societies by addressing factors beyond biological health.
WHO Finances: Money, Money, Money
Funding for the WHO comes from a mix of assessed contributions from member states and voluntary contributions from various sources, including governments, philanthropic organizations, and private donors. The United States has historically been a major contributor to the WHO budget, but debates over fair financial burdens have been ongoing.
Assessed contributions, determined by the United Nations based on each country’s capacity to pay, form a relatively small portion of the WHO’s total budget. The larger pool of funding comes from voluntary contributions, which are often earmarked for specific programs or initiatives. The Gates Foundation, among others, provides substantial voluntary contributions to the WHO.
In 2024–2025, the US was slated to contribute approximately $706 million, nearly 10% of the WHO’s total budget. The US withdrawal, even if temporary, poses financial challenges for the WHO, potentially leading to budget cuts and hindering international health cooperation. Other countries and organizations may need to step in to fill the funding gap and maintain the WHO’s operational capacity.
The financial stability of the WHO is critical for its ability to respond to global health crises and implement long-term health programs. Ensuring adequate funding is a shared responsibility that requires international cooperation and commitment.
The Impact of US Withdrawal
The US withdrawal from the WHO signals a potentially transformative chapter in global health cooperation. With the US historically being a major financial contributor, its departure inevitably leads to financial strain on the organization. The void created by the absence of US funds could impede WHO’s capacity to effectively address pressing global health issues.
Budget cuts resulting from the withdrawal may affect the WHO’s programs, research, and emergency response capabilities. Without adequate resources, the organization might struggle to maintain its level of operation, thereby compromising global health security. This situation underscores the need for other nations to step up and assume leadership roles in global health initiatives.
While the US withdrawal presents challenges, it also offers an opportunity for other countries to strengthen their commitment to global health. Increased engagement from nations willing to fill the financial and leadership vacuum could foster more equitable and collaborative approaches to addressing health challenges. This transition could potentially lead to a more inclusive and sustainable global health framework.
Future of Global Health Cooperation
The African proverb, “If you want to go fast, go alone. If you want to go far, go with others,” encapsulates the essence of global health cooperation. No single nation can effectively address the multifaceted challenges that threaten global health security. Collaborative efforts, shared resources, and collective leadership are essential to achieving meaningful progress.
In the wake of the US withdrawal, it is imperative for other nations to embrace a more proactive role in global health governance. This includes assuming greater financial responsibility, participating in joint initiatives, and promoting evidence-based policies. Strengthening international partnerships and fostering dialogue can lead to more effective and coordinated responses to health emergencies.
Moving forward, global health cooperation should prioritize inclusivity, transparency, and accountability. Engaging diverse stakeholders, including governments, civil society organizations, and the private sector, can enhance the legitimacy and effectiveness of global health efforts. By working together, the international community can build a more resilient and equitable health system that benefits all.
Conclusion: A Call for Collaborative Global Health
The US withdrawal from the World Health Organization represents a significant shift in the landscape of global health. As the international community navigates this transition, it is essential to reflect on the lessons learned and reaffirm the commitment to collaborative action. Global health challenges require collective responses, and no single nation can effectively address these issues in isolation.
While the withdrawal may create immediate challenges, it also presents an opportunity for other nations to step up and assume greater leadership in global health. By strengthening international partnerships, increasing financial commitments, and promoting evidence-based policies, the world can build a more robust and equitable health system. The future of global health depends on the willingness of nations to work together towards a shared vision of health and well-being for all.