Imagine a world where disease outbreaks go unchecked, where nations scramble individually to fight invisible threats. Now, imagine another world where international cooperation dictates health policies beyond borders. The debate on WHO funding is at the heart of this tension.
America’s funding decisions always send ripples across the world. The latest debate over whether the U.S. should defund the World Health Organization (WHO) is no exception.
As an Australian, I have watched this conversation unfold with curiosity and concern, knowing that the impact of such a move would not be confined to U.S. borders. For example, the Australian political party One Nation has expressed support for defunding the WHO, aligning with similar views in the U.S.
The WHO is a specialized agency of the United Nations responsible for international public health. For those unfamiliar, WHO was established in 1948. Its mission is to promote health, keep the world safe, and serve the vulnerable by coordinating global responses to health emergencies, supporting disease eradication efforts, and setting health standards.
The organization works closely with national governments, including the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which plays a key role in shaping U.S. health policies and collaborating with WHO initiatives on pandemic preparedness, vaccinations, and public health programs.
The WHO is crucial in global health, coordinating responses to pandemics, conducting disease surveillance, and guiding countries through complex health crises.
Yet, critics, including the new HHS Secretary Robert F Kennedy Jr, argue that the organization has become politicized, inefficient, and overly influenced by major stakeholders, including the pharmaceutical industry.
The Case for Defunding WHO
Supporters of defunding believe that the WHO has strayed from its original mission and that the U.S. should not be footing a disproportionate share of the bill.
They argue that WHO’s pandemic response has been flawed, with slow reactions and questionable guidance. The idea is that redirecting funds to domestic health initiatives would allow for better-targeted spending, ensuring resources go where they are needed most within the U.S.
Another argument is sovereignty. Some thought leaders believe the WHO’s recommendations infringe on national autonomy, pushing globalist health policies that may not align with individual nations’ best interests.
Proponents say that by defunding the WHO, the U.S. would reclaim complete control over its public health decisions without external influence.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has been vocal about his concerns regarding the WHO, arguing that it has become too closely tied to pharmaceutical companies and globalist agendas that undermine national sovereignty.
He believes the organization should return to its original role of supporting impoverished communities through hygiene, nutrition, and medical access rather than acting as a facilitator for vaccine mandates.
Kennedy saw the Biden administration’s plan to increase WHO’s authority as a threat to U.S. democracy and pledged to either reform or defund the organization.
The Risks of Defunding WHO
On the other hand, defunding the WHO carries significant risks. A weaker WHO means a weaker global health network.
The organization coordinates responses to outbreaks that do not respect borders. Pandemics, antimicrobial resistance, and emerging diseases require global cooperation. If the U.S. pulls back its funding, other countries may follow, leaving the WHO struggling to fulfill its mandate.
Beyond pandemics, the WHO provides essential health services to developing nations. Defunding it could undermine disease eradication efforts, vaccination programs, and research initiatives that benefit humanity.
Some thought leaders in my circles argue that reforms should be pushed from within to improve transparency and efficiency rather than defunding.
According to TIME, “The United States is the single biggest contributor to the WHO, providing nearly $1.3 billion dollars in the two years to the end of 2023. Annually the U.S. contributes to approximately 15% of the funding WHO receives. In a time of multiple crises and emergencies, global aid agencies need more, not less funding (the WHO has recently made an appeal for $1.5 billion for health emergencies in 2025).”
What This Means for Healthcare Professionals and Patients in the U.S.
Defunding the WHO could directly affect healthcare professionals and patients in the U.S. The organization provides guidance on disease prevention, medical research, and best practices for public health interventions, which many hospitals, clinics, and research institutions rely on.
Without WHO collaboration, healthcare professionals may have fewer globally coordinated resources, affecting public health areas like pandemic preparedness, infectious disease control, and emergency response strategies.
For patients, this decision could mean reduced access to global health data, delays in adopting international treatment protocols, and potential gaps in public health initiatives that depend on WHO recommendations.
The impact would be particularly felt in communities that rely on vaccination programs, chronic disease management, and health education efforts shaped by WHO standards.
While some argue that domestic agencies like the CDC and NIH could fill these gaps, others warn that a fractured global health system could cause slower responses to emerging health threats.
What This Means for the U.S., Its Allies, and Other Countries
For the U.S., pulling out of the WHO could mean a more isolated approach to global health challenges.
While it might free up resources for domestic health initiatives, it could weaken America’s influence over international health policies.
Without a strong presence in the WHO, the U.S. may have less say in setting global health priorities, potentially allowing rival nations to fill the leadership vacuum.
An American withdrawal could mean increased financial and strategic burdens for U.S. allies, particularly those in Europe and the Indo-Pacific.
Countries that depend on WHO guidance and support would have to adapt, and those closely aligned with the U.S. may face pressure to either follow suit or increase their contributions to compensate for the funding gap.
For developing nations, reduced WHO funding could mean weaker healthcare systems, fewer disease intervention programs, and slower responses to global health crises.
Many countries rely on WHO-supported vaccination programs, medical training, and emergency health responses—a less effective WHO could lead to setbacks in public health progress worldwide.
A Political Decision with Lasting Consequences
This debate extends beyond the U.S. and affects global health stability.
Reforming the WHO or changing its funding structure will shape international health policies and influence how nations respond to future crises.
If the WHO fails in its role, does reforming it makes more sense than abandoning it?
Can the U.S. truly lead global health efforts if it steps away from the table?
The world is interconnected.
A virus, mutation, or health crisis — none recognize political boundaries. The question is whether the U.S. should fund the WHO and whether it can afford not to.
From my perspective, two major benefits of WHO are fighting against the obesity epidemic, which is close to my heart heart, and the alcohol addiction crisis affecting the lives of millions.
What is your take on this interesting debate in the US or your country?
Thank you for reading my perspectives. I wish you a healthy and happy life.
In conclusion, the debate over whether America should defund the WHO is complex, with valid arguments on both sides. Defunding carries risks of weakening global health security and impacting healthcare services, while proponents argue for better-targeted spending and national sovereignty. The decision has far-reaching implications for healthcare professionals, patients, the U.S., its allies, and developing nations.
Ultimately, the key takeaways are that the WHO plays a crucial role in global health coordination, and the decision to defund it is a political one with lasting consequences. As the world remains interconnected, it is essential to consider whether reforming the WHO is a more viable option than abandoning it and whether the U.S. can effectively lead global health efforts from the sidelines.