World Health Organization Withdrawal: Right Concerns, Risky Remedy

On his first day back in the Oval Office, President Donald Trump wasted no time in reviving one of his most controversial foreign policy stances: initiating the withdrawal of the United States from the World Health Organization (WHO). The executive order he signed cites the WHO’s flawed COVID-19 response, its failure to reform, its alleged political biases, and disproportionate demands on American taxpayers. The directive also pauses U.S. funding, calls for U.S. personnel to pull out of WHO programs, and proposes forming new partnerships to replace the WHO’s work.

While the WHO’s glaring failures warrant serious scrutiny, withdrawing the United States outright may do more harm than good, unless the administration undertakes a much-needed overhaul of global health governance. The withdrawal would take effect in January 2026, and Trump has hinted that the U.S. could remain in or rejoin the health agency if reforms are undertaken. The WHO has lost its way in recent decades. Originally formed in 1948 to battle scourges like smallpox and cholera, the organization initially delivered major successes in outbreak containment and disease eradication. Over time, however, it has shifted its ambitions beyond infectious diseases, seeking more funding through special programs that appeal to wealthy donors—such as initiatives around climate change, to fight obesity, and to study the radiation risks of cellphones, to name a few.