The US Withdrawal: WHO Picks Up the Slack?

Authored by: Sophia Li

Art by: Claire Ma

In 1945, in San Francisco, at the first conference of what would become the United Nations, delegates from Brazil and China collaborated on a proposal to create an international health organization to advance global health [1]. 80 years later, the United States, the single largest funder of global health initiatives and a steadfast pillar in the organization that has seen the eradication of polio and smallpox, will withdraw from the World Health Organization (WHO) within one year through executive order. This withdrawal places millions of lives in limbo as smaller nations find themselves more vulnerable to public health crises, exacerbating the pre-existing global health inequities [2]. 

One of the largest ongoing public health efforts spearheaded by the WHO is the containment of malaria in vulnerable regions, particularly in Africa, where 94% of the world’s malaria cases are recorded, with nearly 600,000 deaths in 2023 [1]. 

Africa, a continent that only accounts for 10% of global carbon emissions, will be the continent most heavily impacted by the negative effects of climate change. It is the continent least equipped to handle increasingly severe natural disasters, putting nearly 110 million people at risk [1]. The mosquitoes that carry malaria have flourished on this continent, benefiting from increasingly warmer climates over the past decade and prolonged breeding seasons [3]. With the exit of the United States leaving a chasm in the WHO’s already stretched finances, the fight to combat malaria and protect Africa’s vulnerable population through increasingly dangerous climate crises, such as drought, heatwaves, and cyclones, will undoubtedly fall short. 

It will be vulnerable, and smaller nations that will see the most fallout from the United States’ decision. Through even a brief look into the WHO’s malaria intervention efforts, we can extrapolate a generalized idea of the difficulties the organization will now face, with its wings newly clipped, in continuing its public health efforts. 

In 2023 alone, the US contributed 1.28 billion to the WHO, 79% of which was to contribute to global responses to health emergencies and prevent epidemics and pandemics [4]. Without this funding, which comprised 16% of the WHO’s total revenue in 2023, regions like Africa, which are uniquely vulnerable to diseases like malaria, will be more at risk than ever for uncontrolled malaria outbreaks [4]. On top of this, the US also contributes its technical knowledge and information database, tools that will no longer be accessible to other nations in combating their own public health concerns.  

Over the years, the spirit of collaboration and global equity that laid the foundation of the WHO has been forgotten by a nation that has for so long prided itself on its international influence. 40 years ago, it was the WHO that introduced a revolutionary shift in the core of public health, focusing on determinants of health and “social reform and equity” in a pivotal moment that was deemed “a new public health revolution” [5]. It only took four decades for this organization, built on noble but lofty ideals, to become overburdened and wholly underfunded, struggling to dedicate its resources toward areas of increasing public health concerns. The decision made by the United States will only worsen this state. 

This withdrawal from the WHO comes at a time when our nation is facing a potential public health concern. With the rise of avian flu cases, the US will be left completely out of the loop about important outbreak data in similarly afflicted nations. If a large-scale outbreak were to occur, US officials would have no say in deliberations about containment and disease response on the global stage [4]. 

Regardless of public discourse, America’s participation in the WHO is not simply about picking up a bill. It not only hurts the nations that rely on the WHO for public health strategies and funding, but it also hurts our nation as a whole. The WHO acts as a channel for global communication. Without it, the US is left without information that could be used to protect the health of its citizens, effectively barricading itself from a global alert system and information highway about the latest developments in potential health concerns.

References:

1. World Health Organization. (2024). “History of WHO.” Www.who.int, 2023, www.who.int/about/history.

---. “Malaria.” World Health Organization, www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/malaria.

2. Johnson, Bailey , et al. (2025). Unraveling Progress: The US Exit from the WHO and Its Global Consequences. Forefront Group https://doi.org/10.1377/forefront.20250131.707269.

3. “2023 Africa Malaria Progress Report.” (2023). African Leaders Malaria Alliance. alma2030.org/heads-of-state-and-government/african-union-malaria-progress-reports/2023-africa-malaria-progress-report/.

4. Kickbusch, Ilona. (2003). The Contribution of the World Health Organization to a New Public Health and Health Promotion. American Journal of Public Health, vol. 93, no. 3, pp. 383–8, www.proquest.com/docview/215096393?sourcetype=Scholarly%20Journals. 

5. Gostin, Lawrence O., and Eric A. Friedman. (2017). Global Health: A Pivotal Moment of Opportunity and Peril. Health Affairs, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 159–165, https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2016.1492.