America’s Changing Political Climate: WHO is affected?

Authored by: Sasha Zivin

Art by: Allison He

The Covid-19 pandemic threw the world into chaos as countries endeavored to minimize the effects of the rapidly spreading disease. The chaotic toilet paper raids, lack of quarantine enforcement, and homemade masks as attempts to handle the disease raised debates that the United States did not adequately warn American residents in advance, and thus was not prepared to handle the virus. On the first day of his second presidential term, Donald J. Trump showed his disdain for the way the pandemic was handled by issuing an executive order to withdraw the United States from the World Health Organization (WHO) [1]. All funding was cut and the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) was directed to stop all communication with the WHO. This was done on the premise that pandemics were being insufficiently planned for by the WHO and minimal progress was being made with health equity and non-communicable diseases [2]. The administration denounced the WHO’s delay in declaring a Public Health Emergency of International Concern and their failure to hold their member states accountable in sharing information during the crisis. 

Despite these accusations, the WHO has made significant achievements through a variety of projects. For one, they initiated the Smallpox Eradication Programme that eliminated Smallpox from every country. The intervention ultimately led to the formation of the Expanded Programme for Immunization in 1974, which helps 2.5 million children each year battle preventable diseases. However, in recent years the organization has been facing increasing criticism for being “‘ineffective, bureaucratic and political ... and for lacking modern scientific and technical expertise’”, as well as being slow to fund projects and respond to oncoming problems such as the cholera epidemic in Haiti [3]. The leadership of the WHO is accused of being inefficient. The WHO consists of 193 ministers of health of each member country. The allocation of work between countries leads to a slow turnover time of two to three years. Additionally, because regional directors are elected informally by the countries, there is critique that many of the WHO’s projects are uncoordinated activities that aren’t based on scientific evidence. Moreover Non-communicable diseases, long-lasting conditions that are not contagious, have recently become the main cause of disease burden. However, funding has failed to adjust to this changing era and is not being reallocated–instead it continues to go towards health detriments that are less of a concern, such as a variety of infectious diseases. Donors also often set the priorities of funding, which exacerbates this issue and prohibits money from being administered to programs that will create the most effective outcomes. However, without the funding from donors, the ability for the WHO to enact projects and supply resources becomes very limited. Funding is the main backbone behind their work. 

The U.S was previously the WHO’s largest donor, supplying them with 15% of their total budget. With the withdrawal, WHO has had to enact budget cuts of over $1 billion and have ceased hiring. The Trump Administration also worked to dismantle USAID, the world’s largest aid agency, and defund the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), an agency involved with improving the AIDS pandemic and sexual and reproductive health [1]. The Trump administration has enacted an ideological shift in U.S. policy from the Biden administration, claiming an “America First” mindset and paving the way to defund and dismantle international organizations deemed not domestically beneficial [4]. By decreasing the country's involvement with the WHO and other international agencies, there is fear that the International Health Agreements for potential pandemics may be compromised and the U.S will not adequately respond to global health concerns. The administration also previously introduced the “Global Gag Rule” to prohibit U.S assistance to any foreign non-governmental organizations involved with abortion-related services, as well as all family planning services [4]. Many worry that this act and the general withdrawal from global health will harm worldwide public health security and is an example of the United States prioritizing their conservative views over human rights. One paper projected an additional fourteen million deaths due to the defunding of USAID, one of the largest American global health organizations [5]. To those opposed to defunding global health, the advent of many more deaths and illnesses contradicts the idea that these organizations are not “doing anything”, and it also demonstrates the government's willingness to prioritize better monetary allocation over the lives of people abroad. On the other hand, others believe that the U.S’s withdrawal from WHO and global health in general may encourage a more equitable distribution of funding from other countries and allow the U.S to reallocate the funding money to other internal organizations in a more efficient manner [6] —they believe this will benefit Americans long term economically and prevent unnecessary governmental expenditure. 

The recent decision made by the Trump administration to withdraw from the WHO has had political and social implications. It has been highly controversial and has sparked a debate on whether the U.S.'s involvement in certain global health organizations has been beneficial or harmful, domestically and abroad. Ultimately, the link between health and politics has made the country's involvement with these global health organizations dynamic. Our investments in health across the world will continue to change alongside politics both now and beyond the current administration–all decisions regarding the United States’ involvement in global health organizations are subject to change.

References:

1. Gostin L. O. (2025). The Trump presidency: Cascading global shocks on global health. PLOS Global Public Health, 5(11), e0005385. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgph.0005385

2. Yazdi-Feyzabadi, V., Haghdoost, A. A., McKee, M., Takian, A., Bradley, E., Brugha, R., Eyal, N., Eybpoosh, S., Gostin, L., Ikegami, N., Kickbusch, I., Labonté, R., Mannion, R., Norheim, O. F., Shiffman, J., & Karamouzian, M. (2025). The United States Withdrawal From the World Health Organization: Implications and Challenges. International Journal of Health Policy and Management, 14, 9086. https://doi.org/10.34172/ijhpm.9086

3. Bloom B. R. (2011). WHO needs change. Nature, 473(7346), 143–145. https://doi.org/10.1038/473143a

4. Liu, Y., Hall, B. J., & Ren, M. (2024). How the U.S. presidential election impacts global health: governance, funding, and beyond. Global Health Research and Policy, 9(1), 49. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41256-024-00391-w

5. Cavalcanti, D. M., Lucas, Ferreira, A., Basterra, E. L., Pena, D., Monti, C., Barreix, G., Silva, N. J., Vaz, P., Saute, F., Fanjul, G., Quique Bassat, Naniche, D., Macinko, J., & Davide Rasella. (2025). Evaluating the Impact of Two Decades of USAID Interventions and Projecting the Effects of Defunding on Mortality up to 2030: a Retrospective Impact Evaluation and Forecasting Analysis. The Lancet, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(25)01186-9

6. Aremu, S. O., Adamu, A. I., Obeta, O. K., Ibe, D. O., Mairiga, S. A., Otukoya, M. A., & Barkhadle, A. A. (2025). The United States withdrawal from the world health organization (WHO), its implications for global health governance. Globalization and Health, 21(1), 48. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12992-025-01137-0