US President Donald Trump signs an executive order on the US withdrawal from World Health Organization in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, DC, on January 20, 2025. Photo: Jim WATSON / POOL / AFP
"THIS is the darkest day for global health I’ve ever experienced. Trump could be sowing the seeds for the next pandemic."
That is how World Health Organisation (WHO) Collaborating Center on National and Global Health Law director, Lawrence Gostin reacted to the news of the US, under the Trump administration, pulling out of the WHO - a move Gostin’s peers in the global public sector have also decried as a “bad move”.
Shortly after his inauguration, US President Donald Trump on Monday announced the country will leave the WHO.
The move raised concerns among the health community as the US contributes around 18% of the WHO’s overall funding, putting at risk programmes across the organisation, according to several experts both inside and outside the WHO, notably those tackling tuberculosis, the world’s biggest infectious disease killer, as well as HIV/AIDS and other health emergencies.
The WHO, Trump maintains, had failed to act independently from the "inappropriate political influence of WHO member states" and required "unfairly onerous payments" from the US.
"World Health ripped us off, everybody rips off the United States. It's not going to happen anymore," Trump said at the signing of an executive order on the withdrawal.
Trump's order said the administration would cease negotiations on the WHO pandemic treaty while the withdrawal is in progress. US government personnel working with the WHO will be recalled and reassigned, and the government will look for partners to take over necessary WHO activities, according to the order.
The government will review, rescind, and replace the 2024 US Global Health Security Strategy as soon as practicable, the order stated.
The WHO explained that the US was a founding member in 1948 and has participated in “shaping and governing” WHO’s work ever since, alongside 193 other Member States, including through its active participation in the World Health Assembly and Executive Board.
“For over seven decades, WHO and the USA have saved countless lives and protected Americans and all people from health threats. Together, we ended smallpox, and together we have brought polio to the brink of eradication. American institutions have contributed to and benefited from membership in WHO.”
The WHO said it hoped the US would reconsider its decision.
Germany, which accounts for around 3% of the WHO's funding, said Berlin hoped to talk Trump out of the move while the European Union voiced concern.
China's foreign ministry spokesperson, Guo Jiakun said they will continue to support the WHO in fulfilling its responsibilities, and deepen international public health cooperation.
Reacting to Trump’s decision, Stellenbosch University Professor Haasan Mahomed said: “It is a bad move on the part of the US as it will affect global health issues and the American health system. Coordination and sharing of information and expertise is important. WHO will lose significant funding from the US's contribution.
“It may affect humanitarian efforts in Gaza with respect to health system development but fortunately, multiple organisations are involved in such humanitarian efforts. Other organisations and countries will need to upscale their contributions to sustain current WHO activities.”
Public Health Specialist, Dr Masuda Palekar described the withdrawal as a broader assault on multilateralism and the principle of global solidarity.
“The WHO is one of the few platforms where nations come together to address global health challenges collectively. While Gaza is a relevant example, this withdrawal could affect other vulnerable populations globally - e.g. areas dealing with endemic diseases like malaria and tuberculosis / conflict areas. These populations rely heavily on WHO-supported programmes, and a funding gap could exacerbate existing inequities. And on disease surveillance. As we know diseases do not respect borders, and a weakened WHO (funding, US- based research and expertise) could mean slower detection and response to global outbreaks.”
Cape Times