U.S. completes exit from global health organization Image By HPN Staff Key Points The United States has formally withdrawn from the World Health Organization, citing dissatisfaction with the WHO’s handling of COVID-19 and concerns about political influence, particularly regarding reliance on Chinese data. Because the U.S. previously provided about 18% of the WHO’s budget, the withdrawal has triggered layoffs, management cuts, and long-term workforce reductions at the organization, raising concerns about weakened global disease surveillance. The Trump administration argues the move does not diminish U.S. global health leadership, instead shifting strategy toward direct partnerships with other countries, NGOs, private-sector actors, and faith-based organizations focused on emergency response, biosecurity, and innovation. The United States has completed its long-anticipated exit from the World Health Organization, fulfilling a pledge President Donald Trump made on his first day back in office in 2025. The move formally ended decades of U.S. membership in the global health body. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) said the decision was driven by concerns over the WHO’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic and what it described as political interference that compromised the organization’s independence. In announcing the withdrawal, HHS said the WHO failed to act quickly enough in the early stages of the pandemic and relied too heavily on information provided by China, even as evidence mounted of delayed reporting and suppressed data. Separately, the U.S. National Institutes of Health has recently assessed long-standing pandemic response strategies, reflecting a broader shift in how the U.S. approaches preparedness and global health engagement. According to the department, those delays cost valuable time as the virus spread globally and contributed to confusion over transmission risks, including airborne spread. Why it matters The U.S. had been the WHO’s largest single funder, contributing roughly 18% of its overall budget. Its departure has already forced layoffs at the organization’s Geneva headquarters, as anticipated U.S. funding failed to materialize. Public health advocates warn the move could weaken global disease surveillance and response systems. Critics argue that reduced U.S. participation could leave gaps in international coordination during future health emergencies. “The U.S. withdrawal from WHO could weaken the systems and collaborations the world relies on to detect, prevent, and respond to health threats,” said Kelly Henning, public health program lead at Bloomberg Philanthropies, a U.S.-based nonprofit. The administration argues the U.S. can continue its global health efforts outside the WHO by working directly with other countries and organizations. The big picture The WHO has said the United States still owes assessed contributions for 2024 and 2025 totaling more than $250 million, a claim that has sparked debate among legal experts over whether payment would violate U.S. law following withdrawal. The U.S. does not plan to pay up. "The American people have paid more than enough," a State Department spokesperson told Reuters. Facing a major budget shortfall, the organization has already cut its senior management team in half and plans to eliminate roughly a quarter of its remaining workforce by the end of 2026. Administration officials argue the withdrawal does not signal a retreat from global health leadership. They point to the U.S.’s long-standing role in combating infectious diseases and supporting eradication campaigns, including smallpox and polio, while emphasizing a shift in how that leadership is exercised. According to the administration, future engagement will focus on working directly with governments, nongovernmental organizations, the private sector and faith-based groups, with an emphasis on emergency response, biosecurity and health innovation. SUGGESTED STORIES Bipartisan coalition aims to prevent health premium spike for the self-employed A bipartisan group of 21 federal lawmakers is pushing to extend tax subsidies for insurance plans that are purchased by self-employed workers and small business owners. Without the extension, these individuals could face thousands of dollars in higher insurance premi Read more Blue states create health alliance in opposition to federal authority A new health alliance launched by 15 Democratic governors threatens to splinter the U.S. public health system. The Governors Public Health Alliance (GPHA) was created by the Governors Action Alliance (GovAct) in response to a shift in federal policies under the Trum Read more Health coverage vs. health care vs. health For more than 25 years, I’ve been responsible for managing our company’s health insurance plan. This is one of the largest line items on any business’s income statement, so it requires careful attention. As anyone involved in this endeavor will tell you, it can be a long, tedious a Read more
Bipartisan coalition aims to prevent health premium spike for the self-employed A bipartisan group of 21 federal lawmakers is pushing to extend tax subsidies for insurance plans that are purchased by self-employed workers and small business owners. Without the extension, these individuals could face thousands of dollars in higher insurance premi Read more
Blue states create health alliance in opposition to federal authority A new health alliance launched by 15 Democratic governors threatens to splinter the U.S. public health system. The Governors Public Health Alliance (GPHA) was created by the Governors Action Alliance (GovAct) in response to a shift in federal policies under the Trum Read more
Health coverage vs. health care vs. health For more than 25 years, I’ve been responsible for managing our company’s health insurance plan. This is one of the largest line items on any business’s income statement, so it requires careful attention. As anyone involved in this endeavor will tell you, it can be a long, tedious a Read more