President Trump’s decision to withdraw the United States from the World Health Organization (WHO) was driven by concerns over the organization’s mismanagement and pro-China bias during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Many in Congress share this view, citing the WHO’s questionable effectiveness, its heavy financial reliance on the U.S., and implications for national sovereignty.
Critics of the withdrawal warn of severe consequences for global health. As the WHO’s largest donor—providing approximately 16% of its funding—the U.S. plays a critical role in the organization’s ability to respond to health crises. They argue that withdrawing would undermine the WHO, increase China’s influence, and isolate the U.S. from global health initiatives.
Supporters of the withdrawal, however, contend that these concerns miss the point. They argue the WHO is ineffective and unworthy of continued U.S. financial and political support. Proponents believe the U.S. health system would remain unaffected by leaving, as the WHO lacks authority within the U.S. and does not significantly influence domestic health policies.
The potential impact of a U.S. withdrawal on the WHO’s operations is irrelevant to critics of the organization, who view its inefficacy and perceived bias as reasons to cease funding. They emphasize that if Europe or China finds the WHO vital, those entities are free to step in and fill the funding gap.
Advocates for withdrawal also dispute concerns about increased Chinese influence over the WHO, arguing that China already holds considerable sway within the organization. They point out that the global community could have objected to China’s role earlier but chose not to. With 193 other countries as members, the WHO’s leadership and funding responsibilities could easily shift to nations that value its operations.
President Trump criticized the WHO for lacking transparency during the COVID-19 pandemic, delaying acknowledgment of human-to-human transmission, and being overly influenced by China. He highlighted the WHO’s initial praise of China’s response and limited engagement with Taiwan, which had raised early warnings about the virus. Another contentious issue was the WHO’s opposition to early travel restrictions, including those implemented by the U.S., although the organization denies explicitly criticizing such measures.
The WHO defended its actions, asserting that it acted based on available information and maintained open communication with China to gather critical data.
Critics of the withdrawal warn that leaving the WHO could disrupt global health coordination on issues like influenza vaccine development, epidemic preparedness, and vaccine trials. They argue this could leave the U.S. vulnerable to future outbreaks. Withdrawal advocates, however, view the WHO’s response to COVID-19 as a failure that caused global economic devastation and immense human suffering. To them, losing global coordination is a benefit rather than a drawback.
Some Americans opposing the WHO also reject experimental or mandatory vaccines and have little interest in participating in global epidemic preparedness initiatives.
The Lancet, a prominent medical journal, has claimed that a U.S. withdrawal from the WHO would be illegal without Congressional approval. In reality, withdrawing is not illegal but does require Congressional authorization.
Sovereignty concerns play a significant role in the push for withdrawal. Trump, along with members of Congress and many Americans, fears that international organizations like the WHO could influence or override national health policies. This concern has led some lawmakers to advocate for withdrawal as a means to ensure domestic control over health decisions.
Supporters of the WHO argue that these sovereignty concerns are unfounded. Yet, even The Lancet acknowledges the WHO’s limitations, such as its lack of authority to enforce state compliance with the International Health Regulations (IHR). Ironically, this lack of enforcement power is a key reason why U.S. opponents resist expanding the WHO’s influence domestically.
While the WHO cannot enforce regulations, the U.S. is legally bound to comply with the IHR—a framework established in 2005 for managing cross-border public health events. The IHR requires nations to report significant public health events, designate a national focal point for communication with the WHO, and maintain surveillance and response capabilities.
Trump’s criticisms of the WHO resonate with many Americans. Opponents of withdrawal have yet to present a compelling case proving that continued membership in the WHO serves U.S. interests. Withdrawal would be a step toward prioritizing America’s interests, leaving the rest of the world to fund and support the globalism they choose—without U.S. involvement.
