On January 22nd, 2026, the United States officially withdrew from the World Health Organisation (WHO). This comes one year after President Trump’s announcement that the US would not only begin the process of leaving the WHO but that it was freezing all foreign aid programmes for 90 days. In doing so, it not only put lives at risk worldwide but signified a shift in political perception of global health. What prompted one of the WHO’s founding members to isolate itself from the largest intergovernmental health agency in the world, and what will the impact of this be on the future of global healthcare?
The WHO has been a cornerstone of US foreign policy since 1948. This move was part of Trump’s latest reforms to US global health policy; withdrawal from the WHO in particular has been a priority for the Trump administration since 2020. The White House cited “mishandling of the COVID-19 pandemic” and the WHO’s “inability to demonstrate independence from inappropriate political influence of WHO member states” as its main reasoning for this action. It also claimed that the WHO “continues to demand unfairly onerous payments”.
The WHO defended their pandemic response, saying that “while no organization or government got everything right, the WHO stands by its response to this unprecedented global health crisis”. They went on to point out that they “supported sovereign governments to make decisions they believed were in the best interests of their people, but the decisions were theirs”. The US included that in leaving they will “cease negotiations on the WHO Pandemic Agreement”, removing themselves from the opportunity to prevent future “mishandling”.
Financially, the United States contributes approximately 15 per cent of the WHO’s annual budget, making it the largest single donor. In 2022/23, the USA contributed $1.284 billion, much of which is used for vital foreign aid programs such as tuberculosis, malaria, HIV/AIDS, and vaccine-preventable diseases. President Trump claims that the US is expected to pay excessively high dues compared to other countries with larger populations. This is, to some extent, true. WHO financial contributions are divided into two subsects, assessed contributions (mandatory and allocated on a GDP basis) and voluntary contributions (allocated to specific programs or initiatives). The US has been paying greater fees in voluntary contributions than other countries of similar population and GDP, suggesting that the WHO may need to reassess its funding allocations. However, by disengaging with the WHO, the US is undermining reform which could be achieved internally.
Trump has also refused to pay the remaining $260 million owed for the 2024/25 year. Since this action, the WHO has undergone severe budget cuts, increased mandatory contributions from remaining members, and relied on private investors, such as the Gates foundation, to fill the gap. WHO Director-General Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus pointed out that this comes at a time where antimicrobial resistance, risk of pandemics and fragile health services are on the rise. There is, moreover, a risk when private funders carry the bulk of WHO financing, as certain initiatives are favoured by particular donors. The WHO must operate as an impartial entity, and this independence can only be maintained if the WHO is equitably funded by member states and not overridden by influential, heavy-spending countries and private philanthropists.
WHO advisor Ilona Kickbusch wrote about the US’s withdrawal: “This is not about money, it indicates the Trump administration’s lack of interest in working in multilateral settings where US dominance is increasingly challenged by emerging powers.”
The WHO does vital work to fund healthcare programs in countries with developing healthcare systems, and the huge loss of funding is having an undeniable impact on these projects. Furthermore, budget cuts to US foreign aid (USAID) has left countless NGOs and charities on the verge of dissolution.
The Irish Global Health Networks “Restore Humanity Campaign” is calling on Irish NGOs, civil society organisations, and global health communities to come together and campaign to “mitigate this global health and humanitarian crisis”. It specifically calls on the Irish government to increase Irish Aid funding and use its diplomatic relations with the US to reverse these policies.
The Trinity Centre for Global Health (TCGH) is actively involved in this campaign. In a statement to the University Times, they said, “The gutting of USAID has had a huge and detrimental impact on global health. As of November last year, it had already led to more than 600,000 deaths, mostly children. They have died of malnutrition and infectious disease. These cuts to USAID will lead to many more, as well as a reduction in the quality of life for millions of people.”
TCGH also pointed out the problematic nature of cuts to vaccine research, sexual health work, and child nutrition funding. On WHO withdrawal they said, “Leaving the WHO adds misery on top of this. The WHO is about promoting health worldwide. By taking themselves out of the WHO, the United States is hurting the health of all, including citizens of the US”.
Within the United States, the effect of leaving the WHO will not be felt immediately; however, the impact is undeniable, with the most widespread effect being on influenza vaccination. Countries worldwide meet annually to discuss and share information on new flu strains, developing vaccines on current flu threats. The US will not be partaking in these talks this year, meaning it will likely be lacking essential global health data. As lecturer Jesse Bump explained in an NBC interview, “the WHO is sort of like a library … we no longer have access. We don’t have that library card”. The effect of this goes beyond flu vaccines to other areas of research including treatment and vaccine development. Without the WHO, the international work of the American Centre for Disease Control and Preventions (CDC) is curtailed.
Furthermore, the USA no longer has to follow WHO regulations and guidance. This alone is a worrying prospect, coming four months after Trump claimed that the use of the common painkiller Tylenol in pregnancy is linked to autism in children. There is no scientific evidence to back this up. With emerging digital and AI technologies, now more than ever it is vital that countries follow fact-based healthcare guidelines.
In leaving the WHO, the US have exemplified a change in the geopolitical dynamics of healthcare. Yet we cannot afford to let politics undermine the health of billions. While it is clear that the WHO must undergo significant reforms, we should be strengthening leadership on global health matters, not simply walking away from the discussion. With a capricious health climate, remodelled by emerging health threats and AI advancements, the only way forward is a united and organised approach to global health. In the words of Director-General Ghebreyesus: “This is your WHO […] Its strength is your unity. Its future is your choice.”
