The US severing its ties with the WHO will cause ripple effects that linger for years to come, with widespread implications for public health. The Conversation askedJordan Miller, a public health professor at Arizona State University, to explain what the US departure means in the short and long term. The WHOhas pushed back on these claims, defending its pandemic response, which recommended masking and physical distancing.
The US does provide a disproportionate amount of funding to the WHO. In 2023, for example, US contributionsalmost tripled that of the European Commission’sand were roughly 50% more than the second highest donor, Germany. But health experts point out that preventing and responding quickly to public health challenges is far less expensive thandealing with those problems once they’ve taken root and spread.
However, the withdrawal process is complicated, despite the US assertion that it is final. Most countries do not have the ability to withdraw, as that is the way the original agreement to join the WHO was designed. But the US inserted a clause into its agreement with the WHO when it agreed to join, stipulating that the US would have the ability to withdraw, as long as it provided a one-year notice and paid all remaining dues.
Read Full Article on TimesLIVE
[paywall]
Though the US gave its notice when Trump took office a year ago, it stillowes the WHO about $260m in feesfor 2024-25. There arecomplicated questions of international lawthat remain. In short, the US withdrawal weakens public health abroad and at home.The WHO’s prioritiesinclude stopping the spread of infectious diseases, stemming antimicrobial resistance, mitigating natural disasters, providing medication and health services to those who need it, and even preventing chronic diseases.
So public health challenges, such as infectious diseases, have to be approached at scale because experience shows thatcoordination across bordersis important for success. The US has been the largest single funder of the WHO, withcontributions in the hundreds of millions of dollarsannually over the past decade, so its withdrawal will have immediate operational impacts, limiting the WHO’s ability to continue established programmes. As a result of losing such a significant share of its funding, the WHO announced in a recent memo to staff that it plans tocut roughly 2,300 jobs― a quarter of its workforce ― by summer 2026.
It also plans todownsize 10 of its divisions to four. In addition to a long history of funding, US experts have worked closely with the WHO to address public health challenges.Successes stemming from this partnershipincludeeffectively responding to several Ebolaoutbreaks,addressing mpoxaround the world and the Marburg virus outbreak in Rwanda and Ethiopia. Both theMarburgandEbolaviruses have a 50% fatality rate, on average, so containing these diseases before they reached pandemic-level spread was critically important. The Infectious Diseases Society of Americaissued a statementin January 2026 describing the move as “a shortsighted and misguided abandonment of our global health commitments”, noting that “global cooperation and communication are critical to keep our own citizens protected because germs do not respect borders”.
[/paywall]
