Abandoning the WHO: Who Suffers the Most?

Authored By: Jannatul Mina Art By: Amy Em

On January 20th, 2025, President Trump withdrew the United States from the World Health Organization (WHO), which has sparked global attention, particularly among public health officials. What does this really mean for the United States? What does the WHO even do? Is the future of global and public health at risk?

While the vast majority of Americans are aware of the withdrawal, many do not fully understand its consequences. The WHO was developed after World War II and contributed to a collaborative effort to prevent disease and facilitate greater public health in conjunction with the United Nations. By choosing to become a member of the WHO, the United States left behind its previous “isolationism in foreign policy,” which had been rooted in the concept of self-preservation, and quickly became a leading power in the organization. The development of the WHO was a turning point for public health, as it held governments accountable for the health of their citizens, which encompasses “a state of complete physical, mental, and social well-being”[1].

The WHO has made tremendous contributions to addressing health issues in marginalized populations, particularly for mothers and those inflicted by HIV. With support from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the WHO created the Department of Reproductive Health and Research Training in Human Reproduction to facilitate greater attention on maternal mortality, [2] which is defined as the death of a woman during childbirth [3]. The WHO’s initiative has led to a significant reduction in the number of deaths due to maternal mortality and has also improved preventative measures for maternal conditions such as preeclampsia, a disease characterized by severe hypertension.

The WHO has created the Global HIV Program, which provides countries with evidence-based guidelines on how to prevent, diagnose and treat HIV, and increases access to pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEp) and antiretroviral therapy (ART) which are medications used for HIV prevention and management respectively [4]. These efforts have significant roles in decreasing the prevalence of HIV and providing increased access to care for those affected by it[5].

Well, what does the U.S. have to do with all this? The United States is one of the largest contributors to the WHO’s funds, providing approximately 15% of the organization’s budget [6]. Thus, the United State’s decision to withdraw will jeopardize the ability of the WHO to continue their work with marginalized populations. Additionally, the decision sends a concerning message about what populations the nation cares about. The current administration seems to disproportionately prioritize health, perpetuating systemic healthcare disparities. The “America First” attitude is deteriorating the health of neighboring countries. Does the United States, as a leading global power, not have the moral responsibility to support the health of those beyond our borders?

The consequences of this decision extend far beyond the walls of the countroom. It gives rise to the question of where we draw the line between ethical responsibility and nationalism. Is the United States. reverting back to its original climactic “isolationist foreign policy” position? We must take a step in advocating for collective health efforts that prioritize both marginalized populations and the health of populations globally, and a good first step is spreading awareness about the impact of the United States’ withdrawal from the WHO: use social media platforms, leadership positions, and even classroom discussions to inform your peers on the importance of U.S. reinstatement in the WHO. The future of global and public health depends on us making our voices heard.

Sources:

1. Meier, B. M., & Gostin, L. O. (2020). A Timely History: Examining the History of the World Health Organization to Frame the Future of Global Health Governance. American Journal of Public Health, 110(11), 1592–1594. https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.2020.305927

2. Firoz, T., Chou, D., von Dadelszen, P., Agrawal, P., Vanderkruik, R., Tunçalp, O., Magee, L. A., van Den Broek, N., & Say, L. (2013). Measuring maternal health: focus on maternal morbidity. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 91(10), 794–796. https://doi.org/10.2471/blt.13.117564

3. Ronsmans, C., & Graham, W. J. (2006). Maternal mortality: who, when, where, and why. The Lancet, 368(9542), 1189–1200. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(06)69380-x

4. WHO Contributors. (n.d.). Overview. Www.who.int. https://www.who.int/teams/global-hiv-hepatitis-and-stis-programmes/hiv/overview

5. Boyd, A. T., Oboho, I., Paulin, H., Ali, H., Godfrey, C., Date, A., & Sean Cavanaugh, J. (2020). Addressing advanced HIV disease and mortality in global HIV programming. AIDS Research and Therapy, 17(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12981-020-00296-x

6. Alexandra, F. (2025). What a US withdrawal from WHO will mean for global health | Lowy Institute. Lowyinstitute.org. https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/what-us-withdrawal-who-will-mean-global-health