The United States’ intent to leave the World Health Organization: Simple reasons why not to worry
The ensuing panic following the announcement of The United States’ (US) intent to leave the World Health Organization (WHO) was understandably justifiable, but should not have been the only response. After all, the Trump administration did try once (and failed) to execute the order. This decision, beyond an effort to antagonize and critique the work of the WHO (the latter which is not entirely unreasonable) offers the opportunity for other nations to step up and catalyze a shift in global health governance and to advance scientific sovereignty in low and middle income member states. If the U.S. no longer wants the title of global health leader, then it's a most opportune moment for others to claim it and do better.
Photo Credit: Askar Karimullin / Alamy Stock Photo
The US’ potential exit from the WHO creates a power void to be filled, and member states should be ready to take over. Yes, who can forget that the US is the main funder of the WHO, contributing close to 15% in 2022-2023 as per WHO’s statistics? It has certainly helped to establish the US as a “global health leader”. While this loss in funding would lead to drastic unemployment, disconcerted efforts for global disease control, prevention, and treatment, and disruptions in health collaboration, The WHO will not stop functioning without the US. Voluntary contributions still make up 80% of the budget. These contributions come from philanthropic foundations, the private sector, NGOs, and citizens, who I will assume, are deeply committed to a non-partisan global health mission.
A better, much more exciting question to ask is if not the US, then who? Who gets to battle it out in this dance floor of political schemes, power-hungry maneuvering, and egotistical agendas? It is high time that the narrow dependency on The US’ dominance is corrected. You probably expect me to recommend something along the lines of “decolonizing global health”. But I am hesitant to believe that global health can be depoliticized because well, we are humans after all. Still, I choose to trust that member states who have benefited from the WHO’s work are preparing and allying to prove their dedication in sustained financial and political support to the mission and vision of the WHO.
The Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) leadership and success on smallpox and polio eradication illustrates a perfect example of breaking the traditional North-South donor dependence. PAHO’s regional immunization programs allowed countries to share resources, such as vaccines, and implement strategies suited to their contextual health needs, resulting in widespread vaccination coverage across Latin America and The Caribbean (LAC). By collaborating regionally, LAC countries achieved significant reductions in the incidence of smallpox and polio, gained greater health autonomy, and moved away from the previous reliance on external aid from wealthier countries and international organizations.
Photo credit: Anna Siampani (CEOWORLD Magazine)
In the same vein, once nations rise to the occasion, they have the opportunity—and responsibility—to strengthen their own scientific and regulatory capacities, reducing dependence on a single dominant actor and creating a more resilient, self-sufficient global health ecosystem. For example, Belize has advanced its epidemiological research through The Belize Vector Ecology Center (BVEC), a locally-managed, independent institution conducting research on vector-borne diseases. Belize has been able to craft public health interventions to its specific social and epidemiological context, reducing reliance on external advisories. As a result, Belize was certified Malaria free by The WHO in 2023. This shows that by prioritizing regional expertise, member states can take ownership of their health security, driving policies that reflect their populations’ needs. Never before has scientific sovereignty been more necessary, and possible, than ever.
“But I have convinced myself that amidst the immeasurable chaos we live in, there is good to come.”
The US’ withdrawal from the WHO merits concerns over the future of global health, but also merits anticipation for something new. The WHO, member states and the global health community have less than a year to figure this out. The world is watching. The clock is ticking. This is not the time to stand by while global health is attacked or to undo the significant progress made in the past half a century. It is time to wake up, to ally, to take politically prophylactic steps to ensure this is never repeated. If I have convinced you that I am happy about this situation, I am not. But I have convinced myself that amidst the immeasurable chaos we live in, there is good to come. Wealthier member states should voluntarily increase their contributions to the WHO to ensure it has the necessary resources to respond effectively to existing and new global health crises.
Simultaneously, national governments can allocate a larger portion of their budgets to developing robust healthcare infrastructure, investing in medical research and development towards health systems’ resilience. Last but not least, NGOs and charitable organizations can reconfigure the disbursement of financial assistance, prioritizing underfunded regions and essential public health initiatives to optimize aid efficiency. Call it unrealistically optimistic—I prefer to call it hopeful.
