Public health experts note that the US has been among the largest financial contributors to the WHO, providing both assessed contributions and voluntary funding for global programmes.

The World Health Organization (WHO) has warned that the United States’ decision to withdraw from the UN health agency will make both the US and the world less safe, raising serious concerns about the future of global health cooperation and pandemic preparedness. The organization said it “regrets” the notification of withdrawal by Washington, describing the move as a setback for international efforts to tackle public health threats and respond to emergencies.

The US is one of the founding members of the WHO and has historically played a central role in shaping global health initiatives, financing disease-control programmes, and supporting international responses to epidemics. WHO officials emphasised that the withdrawal notice will be reviewed by the executive board at its meeting beginning on February 2 and by the World Health Assembly at its annual session in May 2026.

A Legacy of Cooperation and Achievements

In its statement, the WHO highlighted the United States’ long-standing contributions to some of the world’s most significant public health achievements, including the eradication of smallpox and progress against diseases such as polio, HIV, Ebola, influenza, tuberculosis, malaria, and antimicrobial resistance.

The organization argued that decades of US engagement have strengthened global surveillance systems, research collaborations, and emergency response mechanisms. These collective efforts, it said, have helped protect not only vulnerable populations in developing countries but also citizens of advanced economies, including the United States itself.

Public health experts note that the US has been among the largest financial contributors to the WHO, providing both assessed contributions and voluntary funding for global programmes. Its withdrawal could therefore have significant implications for funding, coordination, and leadership in international health governance.

Dispute Over COVID-19 Response

The decision to withdraw was partly justified by US allegations that the WHO failed during the COVID-19 pandemic, including claims that the agency obstructed timely sharing of information and concealed shortcomings in its response.

The WHO rejected these accusations, stating that while no organisation or government managed the pandemic perfectly, it acted swiftly and transparently from the earliest days of the outbreak. The agency said it alerted the world soon after reports of a cluster of pneumonia cases emerged in Wuhan on 31 December 2019, activated its emergency systems, and issued guidance to countries on protecting populations and health systems.

By January 30, 2020, when the WHO declared COVID-19 a public health emergency of international concern – the highest level of alarm under international health law – there were fewer than 100 cases and no deaths reported outside China.

The WHO also clarified that while it recommended measures such as masks, vaccines, and physical distancing, it never imposed mandates or lockdowns, leaving sovereign governments to make their own policy decisions based on national circumstances.

Beyond pandemic management, the US government has accused the WHO of pursuing a politicised agenda influenced by countries hostile to American interests. The WHO dismissed this claim, reaffirming its impartiality as a specialised UN agency governed by 194 member states and committed to serving all countries without bias.

Implications for Global Health Governance

The US withdrawal comes at a time when the global community is attempting to strengthen international health architecture in the aftermath of COVID-19. In 2025, WHO member states adopted the WHO Pandemic Agreement, a landmark framework aimed at improving preparedness, response, and equitable access to vaccines and medical tools during future health crises.

Negotiations are also underway on an annex to the agreement focusing on pathogen access and benefit sharing, designed to promote rapid detection of emerging threats and fair distribution of vaccines, diagnostics, and therapeutics.

Analysts warn that the US exit could weaken these initiatives by reducing political momentum and financial resources, while also encouraging other countries to question multilateral commitments. At the same time, the move underscores broader tensions between national sovereignty and global cooperation in managing transnational threats such as pandemics, climate change, and antimicrobial resistance.

For many developing countries, the US decision raises concerns about potential gaps in funding and technical support for health programmes. The WHO has reiterated its commitment to working with all member states and maintaining its mission of achieving the highest attainable standard of health as a fundamental human right for all people.

Despite the setback, the organisation expressed hope that the United States might eventually return to active participation in the WHO framework. Until then, it said, it would continue to strengthen global health systems and partnerships to ensure that countries are better prepared for future emergencies.

The episode marks a critical moment for global health diplomacy. As pandemics and health crises increasingly transcend borders, the debate over the US withdrawal from the WHO highlights the fragile balance between national interests and collective security in an interconnected world.