In a decision that sparked global debate, former President Donald Trump announced in 2020 that the United States would withdraw from the World Health Organization (WHO). This bold move came amid heightened tensions over the COVID-19 pandemic and accusations against the organization’s handling of the crisis. The decision raised critical questions about the future of global health governance, US influence in international health policy, and the broader implications for pandemic preparedness. Let’s explore the reasons behind this decision, the criticisms leveled at WHO, and the potential consequences of this move.
Why Did Trump Order the US Exit from the WHO?

The decision to sever ties with WHO was based on several factors cited by Trump and his administration. Central to the argument was the claim that WHO mishandled the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly in its early stages. Trump accused the organization of being overly influenced by China and failing to act decisively to curb the spread of the virus. He argued that the US, as WHO’s largest financial contributor, was not receiving adequate accountability or transparency from the organization.
Critics of WHO have long voiced concerns over its bureaucracy and alleged inefficiency. However, Trump’s critique went further, asserting that WHO had downplayed the severity of the outbreak and delayed declaring COVID-19 a global pandemic, actions he claimed benefitted China disproportionately. The withdrawal was positioned as a move to redirect US funds toward domestic health initiatives or other global health efforts outside of WHO.
The Role of the US in WHO and Global Health
The US has historically played a pivotal role in global health, both financially and strategically. As the largest donor, the US contributed approximately $400 million annually to WHO, accounting for about 15% of the organization’s total budget. These funds supported programs addressing infectious diseases, maternal and child health, vaccine distribution, and emergency responses.
By withdrawing, the US not only jeopardized WHO’s financial stability but also weakened its ability to combat global health challenges. This decision risked creating a leadership vacuum, potentially allowing other nations, particularly China, to exert greater influence over international health policies. Critics argued that disengagement from WHO could diminish the US’s ability to respond to future pandemics and undermine decades of progress in global health.
Criticisms of WHO and the COVID-19 Controversy
Trump’s decision highlighted long-standing criticisms of WHO, many of which gained prominence during the COVID-19 pandemic. Some key points of contention included:
- Delayed Response to COVID-19: WHO faced allegations of being slow to declare COVID-19 a public health emergency of international concern, despite early warnings from Taiwan and other sources.
- Perceived Bias Toward China: Trump and others accused WHO of being overly deferential to China, particularly in accepting early Chinese reports about the virus and opposing travel restrictions.
- Bureaucratic Inefficiencies: Critics have argued that WHO’s organizational structure and decision-making processes are outdated, making it less effective in responding to modern global health crises.
While these criticisms are valid in part, many experts believe that withdrawing from WHO was not the solution. Reform, rather than abandonment, could have addressed these issues more constructively.
Implications of the US Withdrawal from WHO

Impact on Global Health
The US withdrawal sent shockwaves through the global health community. WHO’s programs, particularly those targeting polio eradication, HIV/AIDS, and malaria, rely heavily on US funding. A sudden loss of support threatened to disrupt these efforts, potentially reversing years of progress in disease prevention and control.
Effect on Pandemic Preparedness
In a world interconnected by travel and trade, pandemics know no borders. The absence of US leadership in WHO risked weakening the global response to future health emergencies. International collaboration and data sharing, critical components of pandemic preparedness, could suffer without strong US participation.
US Influence in International Health Policy
By stepping back from WHO, the US ceded an important platform for shaping global health norms and policies. This decision potentially allowed rivals, particularly China, to fill the void and increase their sway over international health governance.
The Case for Reforming WHO
Rather than exiting WHO, many experts advocated for comprehensive reforms to address its shortcomings. Suggestions included:
- Improving Transparency: Ensuring that WHO’s decision-making processes and relationships with member states are open and accountable.
- Strengthening Funding Models: Reducing reliance on voluntary contributions by increasing mandatory contributions from member states.
- Enhancing Emergency Response Mechanisms: Developing more agile and efficient systems for responding to global health emergencies.
Reforms could have strengthened WHO’s ability to navigate complex health crises while maintaining its role as a critical player in global health.
Conclusion
Trump’s decision to withdraw the US from WHO remains a controversial chapter in the history of global health. While it highlighted valid concerns about the organization’s performance, the move raised deeper questions about the role of multilateral institutions in addressing global challenges. The decision underscored the importance of balancing accountability and collaboration in tackling health crises that affect the entire world.
The US rejoined WHO under the Biden administration in 2021, signaling a renewed commitment to global health leadership. However, the episode serves as a reminder of the complexities of international health governance and the need for continuous dialogue, reform, and cooperation to address the pressing challenges of our time.
Read More Here.