On his first day in office, President Trump signed an executive order to withdraw the United States from the World Health Organization (WHO). He outlined a vision for finding “trustworthy, transparent US and international partners” to take on the work previously done by the WHO.
Some of the president’s supporters have since echoed the belief that alternatives to the WHO exist, often through opinion pieces and discussions.
However, the reality is more complex. Withdrawing from the WHO and cutting funding will not strengthen the US; rather, it will lead to isolation and a sense of vulnerability. The efforts to create a global pandemic treaty are moving forward without American involvement.
The WHO was established in 1948, and at that time, Congress was rather optimistic. Its mission included enhancing research and programs for major health issues like heart disease and cancer. Over the nearly 80 years since, the organization has made significant strides, including eradicating smallpox and working towards polio elimination. It has guided the globe through numerous health crises, from HIV to COVID-19, despite operating on a relatively modest budget.
The approved biennial budget for 2024-2025 is approximately $6.83 billion, similar to the annual budget of the Food and Drug Administration in the US, representing an effective use of international aid resources.
This budget is comparable to the cost of operating a major university hospital in the US. It’s hard to argue that a better return on investment could come from the small contributions the US makes to the WHO.
The president’s claims about funding lack substantial grounding. While he asserts that the US contributes a disproportionate amount to the budget, our mandatory fees are slightly lower than China’s. The US contributes 22%, while China’s share is set to reach about 20% by 2027.
Much of the disparity in funding stems from voluntary contributions from the US, which are discretionary and used for key objectives like health emergency responses and disease eradication initiatives. In contrast, China has contributed a minimal amount beyond its mandatory dues.
The White House has recently claimed, under the headline “Lab Leak: The True Origins of Covid-19,” that most scientists question the origins of the virus. While there may be credence to the claim that SARS-CoV-2 could have originated from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, it’s also widely believed that it emerged naturally from animals, particularly at a market in Wuhan.
China has faced criticism for its lack of transparency regarding the virus, especially during its initial spread in late 2019. They also mishandled information regarding human-to-human transmission.
Director Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus has pushed for greater transparency from China. However, he has limited authority to enforce compliance with international health regulations.
The Biden administration is advocating for more robust global health regulations, with amendments scheduled for negotiation, although Trump suggested these changes wouldn’t compel US compliance.
There are widespread misconceptions about the authority granted by global health treaties, including unwarranted fears about mandated lockdowns or vaccinations. In truth, the WHO lacks such powers and cannot impose them on member states.
All nations maintain the right to establish their own health policies, a principle reinforced by both international health regulations and pandemic conventions. There isn’t a hidden agenda here.
More fundamentally, public or private alternatives to the WHO cannot replicate its authority, legitimacy, and trustworthiness. WHO plays a vital role in coordinating efforts to protect vulnerable populations and share critical information during health threats.
Ghebreyesus is a prominent and trusted leader, particularly noted for his role in the Access to COVID-19 Tools (ACT) Accelerator, which has been integral in vaccine development and distribution—saving millions in the process.
As the US withdraws, it risks missing out on crucial scientific collaboration and advancements in vaccine and treatment discovery.
The US currently faces significant outbreaks of avian flu, yet there’s insufficient access to vital influenza surveillance data. Collaboration through WHO’s global systems involves around 130 countries, which enhances our response to health threats—something the US stands to lose.
How does this isolation serve American interests?
While there’s always room for improvement in large organizations, changes should be made through engagement. Emphasizing transparency and increasing the contributions from member states can help WHO evolve positively.
Transitioning from a dependency on voluntary contributions, particularly from a major donor like the US, is essential for a more resilient funding model.
The US’s withdrawal from WHO represents a critical error that jeopardizes health security for everyone, particularly for Americans. Even those in favor of distancing should recognize that alternatives are unrealistic.
Ultimately, a world without the World Health Organization is hard to envision.
