Why America’s Withdrawal From the WHO Is Bad News for Everyone

The United States was formally withdrawn from the World Health Organization (WHO) by President Donald J. Trump on January 22, 2026. Trump signed an executive order giving one-year notice on January 20, 2025. His administration cited several alleged and questionable reasons for doing so:

• WHO had “profound failures” and “mishandled” the COVID-19 pandemic. They claimed China unduly influenced WHO and covered up the virus’s origins in Wuhan.
• WHO declared a global health emergency too slowly.
• As WHO’s largest contributor providing between $160 and $815 million each year over the last decade, the U.S.’s financial burden was “unfair” and “disproportionate.”
• WHO no longer served American interests because it was “wasteful, ineffective and corrupt.”
• Withdrawal was an “American First” strategy enhancing U.S. sovereignty and saving wasteful taxpayer dollars.

All U.S. funding to WHO has been terminated. U.S. personnel at WHO offices worldwide have been recalled. Fortunately some individual states like California and Illinois have joined WHO-sponsored health networks independently. California became the first state to join the WHO network following federal withdrawal. Illinois officially joined on February 3, 2026, in order to maintain access to real-time international health data, such as tracking the recent Marburg virus outbreak.

In addition, the Governors Public Health Alliance (PHA) strongly condemned the United States’ withdrawal from the WHO, labeling it a reckless decision that weakens national security and leaves states more vulnerable to global health threats. The PHA is promoted as being “a bipartisan group of 15 governors focused on cross-state data sharing and emergency preparedness.”

How will this hurt national and international public health

This exit significantly impacts the One Health approach by disrupting global surveillance, funding and cross-sectoral coordination. The One Health concept stresses an integrated strategy for balancing the health of people, animals, and ecosystems. The U.S. has a long history of working collaboratively with the WHO.

Ironically, the U.S. Surgeon General from 1936 to 1948, physician Thomas Parran Jr.,MD (1892–1968), was a key architect in the founding of the WHO. Dr. Parran served as the Chief Delegate for the United States and was unanimously elected President of the International Health Conference in New York in 1946, where the WHO’s draft constitution was adopted. The American Public Health Association (APHA) provided strong institutional support during the legislative process to ensure U.S. participation in the new UN agency. The Rockefeller Foundation’s International Health Division (IHD), established in 1913, served as the primary predecessor and organizational blueprint for the WHO. President Harry S. Truman signed the Joint Resolution authorizing U.S. membership.

Three prominent One Medicine-One Health pioneers played key roles in establishing the WHO:

• Martin M. Kaplan, DVM, MPH (1915–2004) was a pioneering veterinarian and a foundational figure in the One Health movement. Kaplan joined the WHO in 1949, became the organization’s first director of veterinary public health, and was instrumental in establishing its Veterinary Public Health (VPH) program.
• James H. Steele, DVM, MPH is known as the “father of veterinary public health.” Steele was a major proponent of the One Health concept/approach. Primarily known for founding the CDC’s Veterinary Public Health Division, he worked closely with early WHO leaders advocating for inclusion of zoonotic disease control in international health policies.
• Calvin W. Schwabe, DVM, MPH, DSc, is credited with authenticating the modern-day One Health movement through elucidating the One Medicine concept. Schwabe’s epidemiology career and work on the interconnectedness of human and animal health profoundly influenced the WHO’s collaborative framework with other agencies.

Indeed, worldwide a Quadripartite composed of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the World Health Organization (WHO), and the World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH, founded as OIE) launched a One Health Joint Plan of Action (OH JPA) (2022-2026) as a framework for action to advance and sustainably scale up One Health. The WHO strongly endorses and advocates for “increasing political commitment and action to invest in the “One Health” approach to prevent and tackle common threats affecting the health and well-being of humans, animals, plants and environment together.”

Paradoxically, a One Health U.S. approach coordinating 24 agencies for addressing zoonotic diseases is being utilized through the National One Health Framework (2025-2029). The main U.S. One Health programs are led by the CDC, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA-APHIS et. al.), and the Department of the Interior (DOI), focusing on zoonotic diseases, pandemic preparedness and environmental health.

Other agencies and departments involved in One Health include the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), National Institutes of Health (NIH), Department of Defense (DoD) (DoD), Department of State (DOS) which is involved in international collaboration for global health security and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) which includes surveillance and biosecurity aspects of One Health.

Public health experts and global leaders have warned that the U.S. will lose real-time access to emerging pathogen information such as bird influenza and other respiratory viral diseases. Why? Because by leaving, the WHO’s “Global Outbreak Alert and Response Network (GOARN)” biomedical information is not immediately available. The effectiveness of vaccines like seasonal flu shots is put at risk since the U.S. no longer participates in the “Global Influenza Surveillance and Response System (GISRS)” which monitors flu strains to formulate annual vaccines. Higher mortality rates may occur.

Rival nations, in particular China, will likely assume more influence over international health standards, thereby diminishing U.S. global influence. This erosion of U.S. influence includes the erosion of diplomatic avenues such as what was accomplished in May 2025’s landmark Pandemic Agreement.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and National Institutes for Health (NIH) have lost opportunities for collaboration and direct access to global health data repositories.

Having the U.S. leave creates a massive funding gap for the WHO since it contributes about 15%-19% of the budget, making them the largest contributor. This has forced the WHO to plan cuts of approximately 2,300 employees, i.e., 25% of its workforce by summer 2026. This also threatens life-saving programs like eradication of polio and management of malaria, tuberculosis and HIV/AIDS, especially in low-income regions of Africa.

Below, the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health outlines the impacts of U.S. withdrawal from the WHO, for the U.S. and for the world:

Despite some officials criticizing the WHO’s “susceptibility to influence,” it remains a vital and irreplaceable central institution for international health. (See these reports published by the Pew Research Center, ScienceDirect, and the PMC.)

Reversing the U.S. withdrawal from WHO will probably require action by a future president or good faith efforts by the U.S. Congress now, which would be problematic and is highly unlikely considering the current political landscape and legal interpretations of executive power.