NEW YORK — The United States has officially completed its withdrawal from the World Health Organization (WHO), concluding a 78-year commitment that began in the aftermath of World War II. This move, first proposed by former President Donald Trump citing concerns over WHO's handling of the COVID-19 pandemic, is expected to have significant repercussions on global health initiatives.
Officials noted that while the withdrawal has been finalized, it is far from a clean break. As of now, the U.S. owes the WHO approximately $280 million in unpaid dues for 2024 and 2025, raising questions about the financial obligations associated with its exit. Trump administration officials did not provide clarity on how these financial responsibilities will be managed post-withdrawal.
Lawrence Gostin, a public health law expert, labeled the U.S. withdrawal as a detrimental decision that could cripple responses to emerging health threats across the globe, hindering efforts to develop and distribute vaccines and treatments necessary in times of crisis. He stated, In my opinion, it’s the most ruinous presidential decision in my lifetime.
The WHO serves as a crucial player in coordinating global health responses to outbreaks like Ebola, polio, and mpox, and provides technical assistance to developing nations. With the U.S. opting out of the organization, there are concerns regarding the future of these initiatives and the pace at which the world can respond to potential pandemics.
Despite Trump's claims about WHO being hindered by political influences and mismanagement during the pandemic, experts argue that the U.S. exit could undermine the global flow of health information and research. Dr. Ronald Nahass, president of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, criticized the decision as shortsighted and misguided, indicating that it contradicts the collaborative efforts needed to tackle infectious diseases.
As the U.S. steps away from WHO, some officials express intent to establish direct public health relationships with individual countries; however, skepticism remains regarding how effective such arrangements will be, especially with countries that have strained relations with the U.S.
The consequences of this withdrawal are expected to unfold in the coming years, affecting the U.S.'s ability to respond to health emergencies effectively while also limiting international cooperation on public health issues.
Officials noted that while the withdrawal has been finalized, it is far from a clean break. As of now, the U.S. owes the WHO approximately $280 million in unpaid dues for 2024 and 2025, raising questions about the financial obligations associated with its exit. Trump administration officials did not provide clarity on how these financial responsibilities will be managed post-withdrawal.
Lawrence Gostin, a public health law expert, labeled the U.S. withdrawal as a detrimental decision that could cripple responses to emerging health threats across the globe, hindering efforts to develop and distribute vaccines and treatments necessary in times of crisis. He stated, In my opinion, it’s the most ruinous presidential decision in my lifetime.
The WHO serves as a crucial player in coordinating global health responses to outbreaks like Ebola, polio, and mpox, and provides technical assistance to developing nations. With the U.S. opting out of the organization, there are concerns regarding the future of these initiatives and the pace at which the world can respond to potential pandemics.
Despite Trump's claims about WHO being hindered by political influences and mismanagement during the pandemic, experts argue that the U.S. exit could undermine the global flow of health information and research. Dr. Ronald Nahass, president of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, criticized the decision as shortsighted and misguided, indicating that it contradicts the collaborative efforts needed to tackle infectious diseases.
As the U.S. steps away from WHO, some officials express intent to establish direct public health relationships with individual countries; however, skepticism remains regarding how effective such arrangements will be, especially with countries that have strained relations with the U.S.
The consequences of this withdrawal are expected to unfold in the coming years, affecting the U.S.'s ability to respond to health emergencies effectively while also limiting international cooperation on public health issues.
