NAIROBI, Kenya- As the world watches another U.S. presidential transition unfold, a controversial move is reportedly in the works: Donald Trump’s team plans to withdraw the United States from the World Health Organization (WHO) on day one of the new administration.
According to a report by the Financial Times, this decision could have far-reaching consequences for global health initiatives.
The Trump transition team is said to be preparing for a high-profile exit from the WHO, to be announced on January 20, the day of the president-elect’s inauguration.
This decision would sever ties with the United Nations-backed health body, which relies on U.S. contributions as its largest source of funding. During the coronavirus pandemic and other crises, the WHO has played a pivotal role in coordinating global responses—a role now at risk.
Experts have voiced alarm over the potential fallout. The Financial Times quoted Lawrence Gostin, a global health professor at Georgetown Law, who warned of “catastrophic” consequences for public health.
Gostin noted that a U.S. withdrawal would lead to “very lean years for the WHO,” forcing the organization to cut back on its ability to respond to health emergencies and scale down its scientific workforce.
Pulling out of the WHO could cripple its ability to manage future pandemics, distribute vaccines, and conduct critical research.
The organization has been instrumental in combating diseases like polio, malaria, and COVID-19, leveraging international collaboration to protect vulnerable populations.
Beyond the immediate financial implications, experts argue the move would set a troubling precedent for global cooperation.
Losing the United States’ leadership in public health could weaken international efforts to address pressing issues, from emerging viruses to chronic diseases.
This isn’t the first time the U.S. has threatened to exit the WHO. Trump’s administration made similar moves in 2020, citing disagreements over the organization’s handling of the COVID-19 crisis and alleged favoritism toward China.
While some applauded the stance as a push for reform, critics argued that withdrawing undermines collective problem-solving in a world increasingly interconnected by health challenges.
If carried out, the January 20 announcement could cement a new era of isolationism for U.S. global health policy. For other nations and organizations, the message is clear: the world may need to prepare for a WHO without its largest financial contributor.
The stakes are high as the United States considers a historic withdrawal from the World Health Organization. While the move aligns with some political priorities, the potential ripple effects on global health initiatives and pandemic preparedness are hard to ignore.
