Withdrawing the United States from the World Health Organization a opening for China to shine on the global stage.

On January 20, 2025, President Donald Trump signed an executive order formally withdrawing the United States from the World Health Organization (WHO). This decision marks a significant shift in global health policy, severing ties with the world’s leading public health agency. The order cites concerns about national sovereignty, alleged financial inefficiency, and perceived bias within the organization. However, this move has profound implications for international cooperation, global health equity, and the ability to respond effectively to pandemics and public health crises.

The withdrawal occurs at a particularly perilous time for public health. The United States is grappling with a “quad-demic,” as influenza, Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV), COVID-19, and norovirus simultaneously strain healthcare systems and public resources. Adding to the concern, the Trump administration has directed federal health agencies, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), to pause public communications. This directive requires all announcements to be vetted by the White House, raising fears of delayed or politicized dissemination of critical health information. Together, these actions amplify the risks to public health and transparency during an already challenging time.

The withdrawal also opens a significant leadership vacuum within the WHO, presenting an opportunity for China to step up as a dominant force in global health governance. With its growing investments in health infrastructure and expanding influence in multilateral institutions, China could leverage this moment to enhance its standing on the world stage. This shift appears contradictory to the broader U.S. policy narrative, which frequently frames China’s rise as a global competitor that must be countered. By withdrawing from the WHO, the U.S. effectively cedes critical ground in international health leadership, allowing China to position itself as a more cooperative and influential actor in global health efforts.

The withdrawal threatens to exacerbate health inequities both domestically and internationally. The United States’ financial contributions to the WHO have historically supported critical health initiatives, including vaccine distribution, disease eradication efforts, and emergency response coordination. Pulling out of the organization undermines these programs, disproportionately impacting vulnerable populations in low- and middle-income countries. Domestically, the withdrawal signals a retreat from global leadership, potentially weakening public health infrastructure and leaving marginalized communities at greater risk during health emergencies.

The decision aligns with the priorities outlined in Project 2025, emphasizing national sovereignty and a shift away from multilateral institutions. While framed as an effort to protect American interests, this policy raises questions about the nation’s commitment to global health and its role in fostering international solidarity. This analysis explores the key provisions, historical context, broader policy implications, and predicted outcomes of this executive order.

Key Provisions

1. Termination of WHO Membership
   • Ends the United States’ financial contributions to the World Health Organization.
   • Halts participation in WHO-led initiatives, including pandemic preparedness programs and global vaccination campaigns.
2. Redirection of Funds
   • Allocates funds previously directed to the WHO to domestic health programs and bilateral health partnerships.
   • Prioritizes investments in “American-first” health initiatives.
3. Review of Multilateral Commitments
   • Directs federal agencies to review participation in other multilateral health agreements and institutions.
   • Recommends a focus on bilateral agreements that align with U.S. interests.

Historical Context and Precedent

• Relation to Past Policies:
  • Builds on Trump’s 2020 announcement to withdraw from the WHO during the COVID-19 pandemic, citing allegations of bias and inefficiency.
  • Reflects a broader trend of skepticism toward multilateral organizations, including the United Nations and the World Trade Organization.
• Global Health Leadership:
  • The U.S. has historically played a leading role in global health initiatives, contributing approximately $400 million annually to the WHO.
  • Withdrawal represents a stark departure from decades of bipartisan support for international health collaboration.
• Impacts on Vulnerable Populations:
  • WHO programs have been instrumental in combating diseases like polio, malaria, and tuberculosis.
  • Loss of U.S. funding jeopardizes these efforts, disproportionately affecting low-income countries reliant on WHO support.

Broader Policy Context

The executive order aligns with the principles outlined in Project 2025, which emphasizes:

• National Sovereignty: Reducing reliance on international organizations to prioritize domestic interests.
• Fiscal Responsibility: Redirecting funds from multilateral institutions to domestic programs.
• America First: Reasserting U.S. autonomy in health policy and governance.

Project 2025 outlines a vision of restoring “accountability and efficiency” by reassessing commitments to global organizations. The withdrawal from the WHO operationalizes these goals by prioritizing bilateral agreements over multilateral frameworks. However, this approach risks isolating the U.S. from global health networks, diminishing its influence and capacity to address transnational health challenges.

Ironically, the decision also creates an opportunity for China to fill the leadership void. China’s increasing investments in global health initiatives and its strategic positioning within multilateral institutions make it a likely candidate to assume a more prominent role in the WHO. By ceding this ground, the U.S. inadvertently bolsters China’s ability to shape global health policies and strengthen its reputation as a cooperative global actor, counter to the administration’s broader narrative of countering Chinese influence.

“Global organizations often fail to prioritize American values and interests. By refocusing on bilateral partnerships, we can ensure that taxpayer dollars serve the American people first.” ,  Project 2025 Mandate for Leadership

Predicted Outcomes

1. Global Health Impact:
   • Negative: Loss of U.S. funding disrupts WHO programs addressing infectious diseases, maternal health, and vaccine distribution.
   • Long-Term Consequences: Weakening of global health systems increases vulnerability to future pandemics.
2. Domestic Health Policy:
   • Positive: Redirected funds could enhance domestic health initiatives, improving localized health outcomes.
   • Negative: Reduced international collaboration may hinder access to global health data and resources during crises.
3. Geopolitical Ramifications:
   • Reduces U.S. influence in global health governance, creating opportunities for other nations, such as China, to fill the leadership void.
   • Strains relationships with allies committed to multilateral health efforts.
4. Equity and Health Disparities:
   • Disproportionately affects marginalized communities worldwide, as WHO programs targeting vulnerable populations face funding shortfalls.
   • Domestic withdrawal from global health frameworks may exacerbate health disparities within the U.S.

State and Public Reactions

1. Legal Challenges:
   • Probability: 70%
     • Advocacy groups may challenge the withdrawal, citing public health risks and the importance of global cooperation.
2. Public Sentiment:
   • Probability: 80% Polarization
     • Supporters frame the move as a necessary assertion of sovereignty.
     • Opponents criticize the decision as shortsighted and harmful to global health equity.
3. International Relations:
   • Probability: 90% Diplomatic Tensions
     • Allies may view the withdrawal as a retreat from global leadership, straining partnerships.

Legal and Constitutional Considerations

• Presidential Authority:
  • Legal challenges may question the executive branch’s unilateral authority to withdraw from international organizations.
• Congressional Oversight:
  • Potential conflicts with congressional appropriations for WHO funding.

Expanded Probability Estimates

Source Citations

• White House – Withdrawing the United States from the World Health Organization
• The Guardian – Analysis of U.S. Withdrawal from WHO
• World Health Organization – Newsroom
• CNN – Trump Administration Withdraws from WHO
• Reuters – U.S. Global Health Funding Impact
• ABC News – Quad-Demic Strains U.S. Healthcare System
• Time – Trump Directs Federal Health Agencies to Pause Public Communications