The United States Officially Exits the World Health Organization: Global Health at a Crossroads
On 22 January 2026, the United States of America formally ended its 78-year membership in the World Health Organization (WHO), marking a historic shift in global public health cooperation. This unprecedented move, announced jointly by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the U.S. Department of State, concludes a withdrawal process initiated by an executive order signed on 20 January 2025 by President Donald J. Trump.
The decision brings to an end America’s long-standing role in the organization it helped found in 1948, positioning the United States as the first country ever to withdraw from the WHO. For decades, the U.S. had been among the largest funders and influential stewards of global health initiatives aimed at disease control, emergency response, and public wellness campaigns worldwide.
Drivers Behind the Withdrawal
U.S. officials have justified the withdrawal on several key grounds. Chief among them is the belief that the WHO mishandled the COVID-19 pandemic, failed to adopt meaningful reforms, and was unduly influenced by political pressures from certain member states. According to the U.S. fact sheet, the organization’s delayed responses to the pandemic and perceived lack of transparency eroded confidence in its ability to safeguard global health effectively.
Another central argument from Washington is financial accountability. Over many years, the United States contributed billions of dollars in assessed and voluntary funding, far exceeding that of most other member states. U.S. leaders argued that this financial burden was disproportionate, especially in light of what they describe as insufficient organizational reforms.
Reactions from Public Health Experts
The departure has triggered sharp criticism from many public health experts and international observers. Critics warn that disengaging from the WHO could weaken global disease surveillance, slow responses to outbreaks, and diminish cooperative efforts on vaccination programs, including annual influenza tracking and future pandemic preparedness. Lawrence Gostin, a leading public health law scholar, has described the move as potentially one of the most damaging decisions for global health infrastructure in recent memory, stressing the difficulty of replacing a unified global system with a patchwork of bilateral agreements.
Many health professionals also point to the risk of losing critical access to international data networks that inform vaccine development and early warning systems for emerging pathogens. Without formal participation, U.S. scientists and institutions may face obstacles in receiving timely health intelligence from around the world.
Global and Geopolitical Implications
Beyond health care concerns, the withdrawal has broader geopolitical implications. With the United States stepping back from WHO governance and funding, other countries—particularly China, Russia, and India—could increase their influence within the organization and on global health policy. This shift may reshape multilateral health diplomacy, especially in low- and middle-income countries that rely on WHO support for basic health services and emergency responses.
At the same time, subnational entities within the U.S. are forging new paths. California, for example, has joined the WHO’s Global Outbreak Alert and Response Network, underscoring domestic differences in approaches to international health engagement.
A New Era for Global Health?
The United States’ exit from the WHO represents not just a policy shift but a turning point for global cooperation in public health. While U.S. officials promise continued leadership through direct bilateral partnerships and alternative mechanisms, the global health community faces a renewed era of complexity. Whether this new direction strengthens or fragments international health security remains to be seen.
please like and follow