In summer 2020 brought together 15 recognized U.S. public health leaders to author article in The Lancet – one of the most prominent medical journals in the world – condemning Donald Trump’s intention to withdraw the United States from the World Health Organization; this decision was later reversed by President Biden before it went into effect.
Nearly five years later, one of the first salvos of Trump’s second term came start the withdrawal process again USA from WHO. The move is already generating both controversy and the threat of legal challenges.
According to A Joint Resolution of 1948 adopted by both houses of Congress, any such withdrawal requires the United States to give the WHO one year’s notice, but Trump’s intention appears to be to withdraw immediately without requiring congressional approval.
“The executive order announces an immediate withdrawal from the WHO, and he did not seek congressional approval and did not provide the required one-year notice,” says Lawrence Gostin, a professor of public health law at Georgetown University Law Center in Washington. and one of the co-authors of the 2020 Lancet article. “In my opinion, this is reckless and illegal and should be challenged in court.”
Trump has a long history of criticizing the WHO, previously accusing the organization of being “corrupt,” defrauding America and “grossly mismanaging and covering up” the spread of Covid-19. The United States has historically been one of the WHO’s largest funders, with some estimates suggesting it provides one-fifth of the organization’s entire budget. In 2022–2023, the United States provided WHO almost $1.3 billion.
However, Gostin and others are particularly concerned about the impact of a U.S. withdrawal on the country’s ability to deal with the continuing threat of infectious diseases. While the WHO has far-reaching remits, ranging from advice on vital medicines to public policy recommendations on everything from tobacco and drug utilize to road safety, it probably has the greatest influence when it comes to surveillance of potentially problematic fresh diseases such as avian influenza and coordinating the international response.
“Withdrawing from the WHO makes us lonelier, more vulnerable and more fragile in the world,” Gostin says. “You cannot close the border against the pathogen. We need WHO to be on the ground and put out the fires before they reach the United States. We also need WHO’s vast network to provide us with the information about mutations and viruses we need to develop life-saving vaccines and treatments.”
According to Sten Vermund, medical director of the Global Virus Network and another co-author of the Lancet paper, what happens next depends on the response of other countries and non-governmental organizations such as the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the World Bank and Gavi: Vaccine Alliance, all of which provide significant funding to WHO funds. After Trump cut U.S. contributions to the WHO to $680 million in 2020-21, Germany he replied quadrupling its contribution to over $1 billion. Danish government he also agreed redouble its contribution with a forceful focus on improving sexual and reproductive health and countering the rise of non-communicable diseases.