U.S. Withdrawal from the WHO: Why “America First” Weakens American Health Security

Author: Kate Minichiello

April 14, 2026

Donald Trump | World Health Organization sign [Image credit: Salon/Getty Images]

The U.S. withdrawal from the World Health Organization (WHO) is framed as an “America First approach, but it may ultimately weaken American health security rather than strengthen it. The U.S. was a founding member of the World Health Organization (WHO) but officially withdrew in January 2026 after 78 years of membership in hopes of protecting national interests. However, leaving the WHO reduces U.S. access to international health coordination, disease surveillance, and the crisis response network that once protected Americans.

Global health threats do not stop at the national borders. International organizations play a crucial role in global collective action problems: problems that cross borders and require multilateral cooperation to solve. The WHO, established in 1948 under the United Nations (UN), consists of over 8000+ health experts, such as scientists or doctors, “working to create responses to health emergencies, promote well-being, prevent disease and expand access to health care” (World Health Organization). In an interconnected world, the WHO is crucial not only for its mission but for its ability to coordinate scientific guidance and information sharing during emergencies such as the COVID-19 Pandemic.

The Trump Administration expressed that they felt the organization had trashed and tarnished the U.S., acted politically and against American interests, and handled COVID-19 poorly. On January 24th, 2026, the WHO responded to the U.S.’s departure from the organization, addressing each of the frustrations. After expressing their sadness, the WHO reaffirmed its commitment to treating member states in good faith while respecting their sovereignty. The organization claimed its COVID-19 response was rapid, transparent, and included strong recommendations, such as mask use, vaccines, and social distancing. The WHO has faced great backlash from multiple member states because it failed “to adopt urgently needed reforms” and “demonstrate independence from the inappropriate political influence of WHO member states” (CDC). However, the organization played a critical role in rolling out vaccines and international coordination efforts (WHO). Without WHO membership during the pandemic, the US would’ve lost access to vaccines and the global information network, worsening the pandemic's impact on the US. Although the WHO needs major reevaluation and reforms, withdrawal removes the U.S. from a system that remains central to global health governance.

The UN has a list of specified international human rights, and the WHO was created to protect the human right to health. The WHO can only carry out its mission to improve global health with funding from member states. The U.S. was the leading donor, so its departure from the organization will greatly impact its effectiveness and efficiency. According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the U.S., on average, paid $111 million in mandatory dues and $570 million in voluntary contributions annually to the agency. The U.S. withdrawal means the WHO loses between 12 and 15% of its funding, significantly reducing the scale of research and assistance it can provide (Rosen). The WHO determines dues mainly on a member state's gross domestic product (GDP) and population (World Health Organization). The U.S. still aims to be a major contributor to global health, but only through independent bilateral channels (Assistant Secretary of Public Affairs). The Trump administration claims the organization took too much money from taxpayers, but the financial savings may come at the cost of American health.

Many argue that the decision to leave the organization is an “America first” decision; however, it is far from it. Trump launched the America First Global Health Strategy (AFGHS), which outlines three goals: disease surveillance and response, a plan to ensure U.S. health leadership over China, and pandemic preparedness (Berkley). Currently, the U.S. has bilateral health agreements with 15 countries, a very small share of the network the WHO provided the US previously. While the reforms are laudable, they work better as supplements to existing multilateral efforts rather than as complete replacements. Without WHO membership, the U.S. lost access to broader international coordination that bilateral agreements cannot easily replace.

The American people will experience the consequences of being cut off from international health communications and benefits. For example, when a new disease emerges, as with COVID-19, information and research are shared among member states, who then develop the most effective response based on scientific evidence. The U.S. will not be informed of the information or involved in debates over the correct response (Rosen). As a result, withdrawal risks leave U.S. policymakers less informed during health emergencies, leading to slower or less effective responses. Overall, withdrawing from the WHO is the opposite of “America first” because it undermines preparedness, shrinks the US global health network, and weakens U.S. influence (Berkley).

Withdrawal from the WHO will negatively impact the work of domestic health agencies, such as the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The CDC was ordered to stop talking to the WHO immediately. This means CDC employees can no longer work alongside WHO staff, making it difficult to implement mechanisms to address transnational health threats and weakening the WHO’s effectiveness due to financial instability, disproportionately affecting low- and middle-income countries. The loss of collaboration reduces U.S. access to real-time disease surveillance, technical advice, and early warnings, which previously helped limit the impact of outbreaks such as COVID-19. Additionally, the loss of collaboration between the WHO and the CDC on global health research undermines the U.S'.s influence over which diseases take priority. For example, the USAID funding freeze for the Malaria Vaccine Development Program delayed critical vaccine trials and stalled years of progress, leaving the U.S. more exposed to emerging threats (Yazdi-Feysabadi).

The WHO collaborated with the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) to strengthen lab biosafety and improve molecular diagnostic capabilities. Additionally, U.S. labs assisted USAID with global disease surveillance. USAID plays a crucial role in tackling inequality, hunger and poverty across 130 countries (Oxfam America). However, the Trump administration also began dismantling USAID roughly a year ago. In relation to the entire federal budget, prior to funding cuts, USAID accounted for 1 percent, or about $105 per US citizen per year (Oxfam). Oxfam, a humanitarian organization, warns that the USAID cuts mean “at least 23 million children stand to lose access to education, and as many as 95 million people would lose access to basic healthcare”. The Lancet Medical Journal projects at least 9.4 million deaths by 2030 due to aid cuts (Kent). The impact of these cuts is especially devastating to states already enduring great conflict, such as Ukraine, Syria, and Palestine. Despite the executive order claiming the cuts were for the American interests, two-thirds of Americans do not support the funding cuts, including almost half of Republicans (Oxfam).

The departure from the WHO and the almost complete destruction of USAID within the past year have weakened protections for Americans' health. According to Davide Rasella, a research professor at ISGlobal and the Brazilian Institute of Collective Health, “development assistance is among the most effective global health interventions available” and has “saved an extraordinary number of lives”(Kent). A senior U.S. State Department Official claimed: “The old system created a global culture of dependency, compounded by significant inefficiency and waste”(Kent). However, inefficiency and waste are better addressed through strategic reforms rather than complete withdrawal. Recent U.S. withdrawal of membership and funds will not lead to a change in implementation or policy but will “disrupt global health governance, threatening disease surveillance and reversing progress made in combating HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria” (Auwal et al.). The U.S. will no longer be a part of global coordinated disease responses. For example, the WHO and USAID supported a multi-country rollout of rapid diagnostic kits, the GeneXpert cartridges, to combat multidrug-resistant tuberculosis, contributing to significant reductions in TB mortality (World Health Organization). The U.S.'s lack of WHO membership will keep the U.S. out of similar operations in the future, leading to delayed and uninformed domestic responses and putting Americans' health at great risk.

Overall, global health is an interconnected system, and US disengagement will weaken multilateral health responses, undermine the progress made in addressing global health inequities, and destabilize critical health programs. Rather than strengthening American security and protecting American interests, withdrawal reduces U.S. access to critical information, cooperation, and influence during global health emergencies. Considering this, the decision to leave the WHO does not advance an “America First” agenda; it makes Americans more vulnerable in an increasingly interconnected world. 

---

Glossary

• Bilateral: Involving two countries or parties, especially in political or economic relations.

• Executive order: An official directive issued by the president of the United States to manage operations of the federal government.

• Foreign policy: A government’s approach to managing relations with other countries, including diplomacy, trade, and international agreements.

• Global collective action problems: Problems that affect multiple countries and require coordinated cooperation among states to effectively resolve.

• Gross domestic product (GDP): The total value of goods and services produced within a country during a specific time period.

• Humanitarian aid: Assistance provided to protect human life and health and to reduce suffering during emergencies or crises.

• Human rights: Fundamental rights and freedoms inherent to all individuals, including the right to health.

• International organizations: Organizations formed by multiple countries to address issues that require cooperation beyond national borders.

• Multilateral cooperation: Joint action involving three or more countries working together toward a common goal.

• Pandemic: A widespread outbreak of an infectious disease that affects populations across multiple countries or continents.

• Sovereignty: The authority of a state to govern itself independently without external control.

• United Nations (UN): An international organization founded to promote peace, security, and cooperation among countries.

• Withdrawal: The act of formally leaving an organization or ending participation in an agreement.

• World Health Organization (WHO): A specialized agency of the United Nations responsible for directing and coordinating international public health efforts.

---

References

1. Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs (ASPA). (2026, January 23). Fact sheet: U.S. withdrawal from the World Health Organization. HHS.gov. https://www.hhs.gov/press-room/fact-sheet-us-withdrawal-from-the-world-health-organization.html

2. Associated Press. (2026, January 24). US completes withdrawal from World Health Organisation. The Pioneer. https://dailypioneer.com/news/us-completes-withdrawal-from-world-health-organisation 

3. Auwal AR, Ishak AS, Saidu Musa S, Musa A, Saadu A, Riaz A. The global implications of U.S. withdrawal from WHO and the USAID shutdown: challenges and strategic policy considerations. Front Public Health. 2025 Jun 2;13:1589010. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2025.1589010. PMID: 40529700; PMCID: PMC12171363. 

4. Berkeley, S. Leaving WHO does not serve America’s—or the world’s—best interests.Science391,eaeg1937(2026).DOI:10.1126/science.aeg1937 

5. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2026, January 22). United States completes who withdrawal. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2026/united-states-completes-who-withdrawal.html 

6. Kent, L. (2026, February 4). One year on from dismantling of USAID, study projects that Global Aid cuts could lead to 9.4 million deaths by 2030. CNN. https://www.cnn.com/2026/02/04/world/lancet-usaid-global-aid-cuts-intl 

7. Oxfam America. (2026, January 27). WHAT USAID did, and the effects of Trump’s cuts on lifesaving aid. Oxfam. https://www.oxfamamerica.org/explore/issues/making-foreign-aid-work/what-do-trumps-proposed-foreign-aid-cuts-mean/ 

8. Rosen, A. (2025, January 30). The U.S. and the WHO: An imperfect but essential relationship. Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2025/the-consequences-of-the-us-withdrawal-from-the-who 

9. The United States Government. (2025, January 21). Withdrawing the United States from the World Health Organization. The White House. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/withdrawing-the-united-states-from-the-worldhealth-organization 

10. World Health Organization. (2013a). Largest ever roll-out of GeneXpert® Rapid TB test machines, in 21 countries. World Health Organization. https://www.who.int/news/item/11-06-2013-largest-ever-roll-out-of-genexpert-rapid-tb-test-machines-in-21-countries 

11. World Health Organization. (n.d.-a). COVAX. World Health Organization. https://www.who.int/initiatives/act-accelerator/covax 

12. World Health Organization. (n.d.). Who we are. World Health Organization. https://www.who.int/about/who-we-are 

13. World Health Organization. (2023, December 1). Human rights. World Health Organization. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/human-rights-and-health 

14. World Health Organization. (2026, January 24). WHO statement on notification of withdrawal of the United States. World Health Organization. https://www.who.int/news/item/24-01-2026-who-statement-on-notification-of-withdrawal-of-the-united-states 

15. Yazdi-Feyzabadi V, Haghdoost AA, McKee M, Takian A, Bradley E, Brugha R, Eyal N, Eybpoosh S, Gostin L, Ikegami N, Kickbusch I, Labonté R, Mannion R, Norheim OF, Shiffman J, Karamouzian M. The United States Withdrawal From the World Health Organization: Implications and Challenges. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2025;14:9086. doi: 10.34172/ijhpm.9086. Epub 2025 Mar 18. PMID: 40767200; PMCID: PMC12089832.