The United States has formally exited the World Health Organization (WHO), marking a dramatic shift in global health cooperation just one year after President Donald Trump signed an executive order to begin the withdrawal process.
Under U.S. law, a country must provide one year’s notice and pay all outstanding dues before leaving the WHO. Washington’s departure comes despite owing roughly $260 million in unpaid contributions, a requirement that has raised legal and diplomatic questions.
A spokesperson for the U.S. State Department defended the decision, saying the WHO had failed to manage recent global health emergencies effectively. Opponents of the move, including global health experts and WHO officials, warn the withdrawal will weaken global disease tracking and response systems.
WHO officials have begun major budget cuts after losing the United States as its largest national funder.
The U.S. historically provided about 18% of the WHO’s overall funding. The sudden loss of these resources has forced the organisation to halve its senior management team and launch cost-saving measures, including cutting budgets across departments and planning to reduce staff by around a quarter by mid-2026.
Director-General Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus has said the WHO is revising priorities and halting most new hiring to cope with the financial shock. Experts warn that reduced funding could affect disease surveillance, vaccine coordination and emergency response capacity globally.
Public health leaders and analysts have issued stark warnings about the broader consequences of the U.S. withdrawal.
Critics say the decision undermines global cooperation on health threats that cross borders, such as influenza, Ebola and future pandemics. Dr Tedros described the loss as “a setback for global health” and has appealed for renewed U.S. engagement.
Commentators in Time and other outlets also highlight concerns that U.S. scientists may lose access to essential international data and experts, weakening both global and domestic health preparedness. The void in leadership could allow other nations to increase their influence within the WHO’s governance structures.
Capitals and health authorities have reacted with a mix of concern and calls for adaptation. Some public health experts emphasise the importance of strengthening regional health systems and diversifying funding in the absence of U.S. support.
Others warn that lower-income countries, particularly those reliant on WHO programmes for disease control and immunisation, could suffer disproportionately.
Inputs from Times, Reuters
