US officially withdraws from the World Health Organization – The United States has officially resigned from the World Health Organization, marking a historic and controversial breach with the global body tasked with managing international public health. The resignation took effect on Thursday, January 22, following a year of warnings from health experts that leaving the WHO would diminish disease preparation both in the U.S. and throughout the world. US officially withdraws from the World Health Organization
The move fulfills a decision taken by President Donald Trump on the first day of his second term in 2025, when he issued an executive order commencing the withdrawal process. The administration said the decision reflected long-standing dissatisfaction with what it views as the WHO’s shortcomings during the COVID-19 epidemic, especially its handling of early outbreak information and its ties with China.
In a joint statement, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the State Department confirmed that the United States would considerably reduce its cooperation with the WHO as it completes the withdrawal. Officials underscored that the U.S. does not aim to maintain even a symbolic presence within the organization. US officially withdraws from the World Health Organization
“We have no plans to participate as an observer, and we have no plans of rejoining,” a senior government health official said. Instead, the administration stated the U.S. will explore bilateral connections with other countries to meet public health goals such as disease surveillance, outbreak response, and data sharing—bypassing international institutions completely.
The departure, however, has immediately created legal, financial, and diplomatic issues.
Under U.S. law, the country is obligated to give one year’s notice before quitting the WHO and to pay any outstanding financial obligations, estimated at around $260 million. These outstanding costs cover U.S. contributions for 2024 and 2025, according to the WHO. The Trump administration contends that payment is a legal prerequisite for withdrawal. A State Department source noted the applicable statute does not explicitly require overdue dues to be paid before departure is confirmed.
“The American people have paid more than enough,” a State Department official said in an email Thursday. That interpretation is fiercely debated by law professionals and global health watchers. “This is a clear violation of U.S. law,” said Lawrence Gostin, founding director of the O’Neill Institute for Global Health Law at Georgetown University. “But Trump is highly likely to get away with it.” US officially withdraws from the World Health Organization
The WHO confirmed that the U.S. has not completed its outstanding payments and said the issue will be handled at the organization’s executive board meeting in February. Member states are expected to argue how the departure should be handled and what steps the agency may take to limit the harm.
For many in the global health community, the U.S. pullout is very disturbing.
Over the past year, WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus repeatedly asked Washington to rethink, saying that withdrawal would damage global disease detection systems and impair coordinated responses to future pandemics. His appeals finally went unanswered.
Bill Gates, chair of the Gates Foundation and one of the greatest funders of global health programs, said he does not anticipate the U.S. to reverse course anytime soon. Speaking to Reuters at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Gates said he will continue lobbying for American reengagement. “The world needs the World Health Organization,” Gates added, underlining that no single country can address global health problems alone.
The ramifications of the U.S. exit are already being felt inside the WHO.
Washington has long been the organization’s single largest donor, delivering around 18% of its overall revenue. The sudden withdrawal of that support has produced a financial crisis within the organization. In response, the WHO has cut its senior management team in half, lowered budgets across departments, and announced intentions to reduce its personnel by around 25% by mid-year. US officially withdraws from the World Health Organization
Programs relating to disease surveillance, emergency preparedness, and technical support in lower-income nations are among those facing reductions. The WHO said it has been sharing information with U.S. authorities during the withdrawal phase, but it remains unclear how partnership will function now that the U.S. is technically outside the organization. Global health experts worry that the collapse in cooperation might pose major risks—not just for other countries, but for Americans as well.
“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 head at Bloomberg Philanthropies. “That ultimately leaves everyone more vulnerable.”
Critics contend that infectious illnesses do not respect borders and that the U.S. benefits directly from WHO-led early warning systems, global data sharing, and coordinated responses to outbreaks such as Ebola, Zika, and COVID-19. Without access to those networks, the U.S. may obtain important information later—or not at all.US officially withdraws from the World Health Organization
Supporters of the pullout, meanwhile, argue the WHO has failed to change and no longer serves U.S. interests. They contend that the organization botched the early stages of the COVID-19 outbreak and lacked adequate independence from political influence. From this perspective, disengaging helps the U.S. to retake control over its public health agenda. Still, even some critics of the WHO caution that pulling away totally could backfire.
“The WHO absolutely needs reform,” said one former U.S. health official. “But abandoning it instead of leading reform from within risks ceding influence to other global powers.” For now, the administration appears unfazed by those arguments. Officials argue the U.S. can protect its population through direct relationships and domestic spending, without relying on international entities.
Whether that method is effective will likely be challenged by the next global health crisis—whenever and wherever it emerges. As the globe becomes more interconnected and climate change accelerates the transmission of disease, many experts believe the U.S. choice may leave both the country and the global health system less prepared for what comes next. US officially withdraws from the World Health Organization
About the Author
