The global public health landscape faces a significant challenge following the formal notification from the United States of America regarding its intention to withdraw from the World Health Organization (WHO). This unprecedented move by a foundational member, communicated to the international body, has elicited profound regret from the WHO leadership, who assert that such a disengagement poses considerable risks to the health security of both the United States itself and the broader global community. The ramifications of this decision are poised to become central topics for discussion within the WHO’s governance structures, with the Executive Board scheduled to address the complex issues arising from the notification at its upcoming regular session, and the World Health Assembly, the organization’s supreme decision-making body, slated to further deliberate on the matter in May 2026.
For decades, the United States has been an integral and formidable force in shaping global health initiatives, standing as one of the principal architects and a steadfast supporter of the WHO since its inception. Its historical contributions extend across a spectrum of monumental public health victories, demonstrating a long-standing commitment to international collaboration in combating disease. The most celebrated of these achievements, the global eradication of smallpox, stands as a testament to what concerted international effort, significantly bolstered by American scientific, logistical, and financial contributions, can accomplish. Beyond this singular triumph, the US has played a pivotal role in the relentless campaigns against other debilitating global health threats. This includes the substantial progress made toward eradicating polio, a disease now on the brink of elimination due to widespread vaccination efforts. Furthermore, American leadership and resources have been critical in confronting the devastating impacts of HIV/AIDS, driving research, funding prevention programs, and expanding access to life-saving treatments worldwide. In recent memory, the swift and coordinated responses to outbreaks of deadly pathogens like Ebola, the continuous battle against seasonal and pandemic influenza, and the ongoing struggles with endemic diseases such as tuberculosis, malaria, and neglected tropical diseases have all benefited immensely from US engagement. Even in the face of emerging threats like antimicrobial resistance and the perennial challenge of ensuring food safety, the US has been a key partner in developing and implementing global strategies. The WHO acknowledges these deep-rooted ties and the extensive positive impact of American involvement, underscoring the gravity of the announced withdrawal.
In justifying its decision, the United States government has articulated several core grievances, which the WHO has acknowledged and sought to address directly. Prominently among these, Washington has expressed concerns that the WHO has become unduly "politicized," accusing it of pursuing a "bureaucratic agenda driven by nations hostile to American interests." These statements also include allegations that the WHO has "trashed and tarnished" the United States, insulted its sovereignty, and compromised its independence. Such claims challenge the very foundation of the WHO’s operational ethos as a neutral, evidence-based global health authority. The organization, a specialized agency within the United Nations system, operates under the governance of 194 Member States, each with sovereign rights and interests. In response to these assertions, the WHO firmly reiterates its unwavering commitment to impartiality and its fundamental mandate to serve all nations equitably, without prejudice or favoritism. It stresses that its engagement with every Member State, including the United States, has consistently been conducted in good faith, respecting national sovereignty while upholding its global public health objectives.
A central point of contention raised by the United States pertains to the WHO’s performance during the initial phases of the COVID-19 pandemic. Specifically, the US government has cited "WHO failures" during this critical period, alleging that the organization "obstructed the timely and accurate sharing of critical information" and subsequently "concealed those failures." These criticisms emerged amidst an unprecedented global health crisis that tested the resilience of every nation and international institution. While the WHO readily concedes that no organization or government managed every aspect of the pandemic perfectly, given the novel nature of the virus and the evolving scientific understanding, it staunchly defends its comprehensive and transparent response.
A detailed review of the WHO’s actions during the pandemic’s genesis highlights a proactive and rapid engagement. On December 31, 2019, immediately upon receiving the initial reports from China concerning a cluster of "pneumonia of unknown cause" cases in Wuhan, the WHO initiated an urgent request for more detailed information and simultaneously activated its internal emergency incident management system. Within days, by January 11, 2020, when the first fatality from the new illness was reported in China, the organization had already leveraged its formal communication channels, public statements, and social media platforms to alert the international community. Concurrently, it convened global experts to synthesize emerging data and published comprehensive guidance documents designed to assist countries in protecting their populations and strengthening their health systems against the nascent threat.
The declaration of COVID-19 as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) on January 30, 2020, by the WHO Director-General, represented the highest possible level of alarm under the International Health Regulations (IHR). This declaration, a critical global health policy tool, was made at a pivotal moment when fewer than 100 cases of the virus had been reported outside of mainland China, and no deaths had occurred beyond its borders. This early warning provided a crucial window for countries worldwide to prepare. In the subsequent weeks and months, the Director-General repeatedly issued urgent appeals to all nations, emphasizing the rapidly closing "window of opportunity" to contain the virus. He warned that "this is not a drill" and unequivocally labeled COVID-19 as "public enemy number one," urging immediate and decisive action from governments globally. The WHO’s role throughout this period was primarily advisory, providing evidence-based recommendations on measures such as mask usage, physical distancing, and the eventual deployment of vaccines. However, the ultimate decisions regarding the implementation of mandates for masks, vaccines, or large-scale lockdowns remained squarely within the sovereign authority of individual governments, who were supported in making choices they deemed best for their populations.
In the wake of the pandemic, numerous independent reviews and assessments of the global response, including the WHO’s performance, have been conducted. In acknowledgment of these evaluations, the organization has undertaken significant internal reforms to strengthen its own operational capabilities and has intensified its support for Member States in bolstering their national pandemic preparedness and response capacities. The robust systems developed and continuously managed by the WHO, operating 24/7 before, during, and after the emergency phase of the pandemic, have played an indispensable role in safeguarding global health, a benefit that extends to all countries, including the United States.
Looking ahead, the potential disengagement of the United States poses substantial questions for the future architecture of global health governance. While the internal processes for addressing the US notification unfold within the WHO’s Executive Board and the World Health Assembly, the broader international community continues to grapple with the imperative of collective action against shared health threats. A testament to this ongoing commitment is the recent adoption of the WHO Pandemic Agreement by Member States. Once ratified, this landmark instrument of international law is designed to enhance global readiness and response to future pandemics, ensuring a safer world through collaborative frameworks. Complementing this, Member States are actively engaged in negotiating an annex to the agreement, known as the Pathogen Access and Benefit Sharing system. This proposed mechanism aims to foster the rapid detection and transparent sharing of pathogens with pandemic potential, coupled with equitable and timely access to essential medical countermeasures, including vaccines, therapeutics, and diagnostics.
The withdrawal of a founding member and a leading contributor inevitably presents challenges to the operational capacity and financial stability of the WHO, potentially impacting its ability to execute its vital programs across the globe. Despite these imminent difficulties, the organization maintains a steadfast commitment to its constitutional mandate: to achieve the highest attainable standard of health as a fundamental human right for all people. The WHO expresses a profound hope that, in due course, the United States will reconsider its position and resume active participation in the multilateral efforts essential for addressing the world’s most pressing health challenges, both communicable and non-communicable. Meanwhile, the organization remains resolute in its dedication to working collaboratively with all countries, pursuing solutions within the established framework of global health cooperation.
About the Author
