The United States has officially completed its withdrawal from the World Health Organization (WHO), the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced on Thursday. This move fulfills a long-standing objective of President Donald Trump, who had previously attempted to exit the organization during his first term in office.
On the first day of his second term, Trump issued a formal executive order initiating the withdrawal process. Under U.S. law, leaving an international organization such as the WHO requires a one-year notice period, along with the settlement of any outstanding financial obligations. According to reports, the United States still owes approximately $260 million to the WHO. However, legal experts suggest that these funds are unlikely to be paid, as the organization lacks the authority to enforce payment.
Dr. Lawrence Gostin, a global health law expert at Georgetown University, explained that while the law clearly states the U.S. must fulfill its financial commitments before officially withdrawing, there is little the WHO can do to compel compliance. He added that although the WHO could attempt to challenge the withdrawal through a formal resolution, it is unlikely to escalate the situation given the administration’s firm stance on leaving.
HHS confirmed that all U.S. government funding to the WHO has now been terminated. In addition, all American personnel and contractors who were assigned to or working within the organization have been recalled. The United States has also ended its participation in WHO-led committees, leadership roles, governance bodies, and technical working groups.
Despite the withdrawal, administration officials indicated that some limited forms of cooperation may still continue. For example, discussions are ongoing بشأن whether the U.S. will take part in an upcoming WHO-led meeting focused on determining next year’s influenza vaccine composition.
During a call with reporters, a senior administration official defended the decision, stating that the United States had not received sufficient value from its involvement in the organization. The official described the withdrawal as “a promise made and a promise kept,” and argued that the WHO had acted in ways that were not aligned with U.S. interests in protecting public health.
The official also pointed out that although the United States has historically been the largest financial contributor to the WHO, no American has ever served as the organization’s director-general.
HHS cited the WHO’s handling of the COVID-19 pandemic as a major factor behind the decision to withdraw. In a statement, the agency criticized the organization for delaying the declaration of a global public health emergency and for praising China’s response despite what the administration described as early underreporting, suppression of information, and delays in confirming human-to-human transmission of the virus.
The agency also took issue with the WHO’s early assessments of the virus, noting that it initially downplayed the risks of airborne transmission and asymptomatic spread. According to a senior HHS official, the withdrawal ensures that U.S. health policies will no longer be influenced or constrained by what they described as “unaccountable foreign bureaucrats.”
Even after leaving the WHO, administration officials emphasized that the United States intends to remain a major player in global health efforts. Instead of working through the WHO, the U.S. plans to collaborate directly with individual countries, non-governmental organizations, and religious groups. These efforts will focus on areas such as infectious disease surveillance and data sharing and are expected to be led by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Global Health Center.
Officials stated that they have evaluated potential gaps that could arise from leaving the WHO and have developed plans to address them. They also indicated that additional details about future global health strategies will be announced in the coming months.
However, many public health experts have expressed concern about the potential consequences of this decision. Some warn that relying on bilateral agreements rather than a centralized global organization like the WHO could weaken international coordination, creating gaps in disease surveillance and response capabilities.
One former CDC official noted that while the agency operates in around 60 countries, its reach does not match the global scale of the WHO. Critics argue that the withdrawal could leave both the United States and the broader international community more vulnerable to emerging biological threats.
Dr. Ronald Nahass, president of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, strongly criticized the move, calling it a “shortsighted and misguided abandonment” of the nation’s global health responsibilities.
