What kind of impact may we be looking at? – Firstpost

US President Donald Trump has
signed an executive order to withdraw the United States from the World Health Organisation (WHO) for the second time in less than five terms.

“Ooh,” Trump reacted as he was handed the action to sign. “That’s a big one!”

“World Health ripped us off, everybody rips off the United States. It’s not going to happen anymore,” Trump said. This move has elicited strong reactions from scientists, public health experts, and world leaders.

Why is the US withdrawing from WHO?

Trump’s justification for leaving the WHO hinges on claims of mismanagement, lack of autonomy, and unequal financial burdens on the US. His executive order criticised the organisation’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic, alleged political influence from member states such as China, and its perceived resistance to reforms.

The US, historically the WHO’s largest donor, has contributed roughly 18 per cent of its annual budget.

The executive order also aims to redirect US funds to other global health initiatives and reassess priorities. However, the withdrawal requires a one-year notice period and fulfillment of financial obligations before becoming final.

What can be the potential fallout for WHO?

The US withdrawal is expected to significantly impact WHO financially and operationally. Over the past decade, US contributions have ranged from $160 million to $815 million annually, supporting programmes like polio eradication, maternal and child health, and infectious disease surveillance. With a $2-3 billion annual budget, the WHO’s reliance on US funding cannot be overstated.

“A US withdrawal from WHO would make the world far less healthy and safe,” warned Lawrence Gostin, director of the WHO Collaborating Center on Global Health Law at Georgetown University. He highlighted the risk of undermining epidemic responses, vaccine development, and disease research.

WHO officials
expressed regret over the decision, citing decades of successful collaborations with the US on eradicating smallpox, combating polio, and addressing other health crises. “We hope the United States will reconsider and look forward to engaging in constructive dialogue to maintain the partnership,” the organisation said in a statement.

Programmes targeting diseases like HIV/AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis, which have seen considerable progress, now face uncertainty. Experts warn that reduced funding and cooperation could weaken global defenses against future outbreaks, increasing the likelihood of pandemics.

New Zealand’s former Prime Minister Helen Clark described the move as “disruptive,” cautioning that it could create a “substantial dent” in WHO’s capacity to respond to health crises. She highlighted the risk of a bird flu pandemic, underscoring the importance of global collaboration.

What is US’ history with WHO?

The United States has been a pivotal player in the WHO since its inception in 1948, with American funding and expertise supporting major health initiatives. From eradicating smallpox in the 20th century to advancing maternal health and fighting polio, the US has been integral to the WHO’s mission.

During the 1980s, for instance, US efforts to strengthen global immunisation programmes significantly reduced child mortality rates. Similarly, initiatives like the Global Health Security Agenda (GHSA) were spearheaded with strong American participation.

However, tensions have surfaced over the years regarding WHO’s autonomy, governance, and transparency. Critics, including the Trump administration, have argued that the organisation has become overly bureaucratic and influenced by major powers like China, leading to inefficiencies in addressing global health crises.

What comes next?

The withdrawal process will take a year to complete, during which the US must honor its financial commitments. In the meantime, other nations and organisations may need to step up to fill the funding gap.

Germany, which temporarily became WHO’s largest donor during Trump’s previous withdrawal attempt in 2020, has
expressed hopes for a reversal but has not committed to covering the shortfall.

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, WHO’s second-largest donor, has reaffirmed its support for the agency. However, experts caution that even increased contributions from other donors might not fully compensate for the loss of US funding.

While some experts advocate for reforms within the WHO to address criticisms, they stress that disengagement is not a viable solution. “This is the darkest day for global health I’ve ever experienced,” said Lawrence Gostin, reflecting fears about the long-term consequences.

Also Watch:

With inputs from agencies