On January 20, 2025, President Donald Trump signed an executive order initiating the United States’ withdrawal from the World Health Organization (WHO).
The administration cited several reasons for this decision:
- Mishandling of the COVID-19 Pandemic: The U.S. government criticised the WHO’s response to the “COVID-19 outbreak”, particularly regarding its interactions with China during the early stages of the declared “pandemic”.
- Financial Disparities: Concerns were raised about the financial contributions to the WHO, highlighting that the United States, with a population of approximately 331 million, contributed significantly more than China, which has a population of 1.4 billion.
- Need for Organisational Reforms: The administration pointed to the WHO’s failure to implement necessary reforms and its susceptibility to political influences from member states.
Potential Benefits for the United States
Proponents of the withdrawal highlight the following benefits:
- Reallocation of Resources: Withdrawing from the WHO allows the U.S. to redirect funds to other health initiatives or organisations that align more closely with national priorities. This could potentially lead to greater efficiency and a more targeted impact.
- Pressure for Reform: The U.S. withdrawal sends a strong message to the WHO and its member states about the need for accountability, transparency, and governance reforms. Advocates argue that this move could incentivise the organisation to address its shortcomings.
- Focus on Bilateral Health Initiatives: By stepping away from the WHO, the U.S. has the opportunity to strengthen bilateral partnerships with countries and regions, creating tailored health programmes that meet specific needs.
Challenges and Drawbacks
Opponents of the withdrawal argue that the decision also presents significant challenges:
- Diminished Global Influence: By leaving the WHO, the U.S. forfeits a key platform for shaping global health policies and initiatives. This could lead to reduced influence in addressing transnational health challenges, such as “pandemics”, antimicrobial resistance, and non-communicable diseases.
- Weakened Health Collaboration: The WHO serves as a hub for international collaboration, providing critical data, expertise, and resources during health emergencies. Without access to these networks, the U.S. may face difficulties in responding to global health threats.
- Criticism from Public Health Experts: Many health professionals have voiced concerns that the withdrawal undermines global health security. The interconnected nature of modern health challenges means that no country can effectively address these issues in isolation.
- Risk of Fragmentation: The absence of the U.S. from the WHO could lead to fragmentation within the global health landscape, with countries pursuing uncoordinated approaches that may prove less effective.
Other Countries Should Consider
There is much to be said about the WHO’s control over global health, especially when we reflect on the COVID “pandemic.” It serves as a stark reminder of how easily governments can—and often do—allow themselves to be influenced by outside organisations like the WHO. What is even more troubling is how this influence extended far beyond mere guidance. During the pandemic, many governments seemed to surrender their autonomy in health-related decisions, following directives from an external body without sufficient scrutiny or independent action. This raises fundamental questions about the legitimacy of centralised control over national health systems, particularly when it comes to the WHO’s foundation—the germ theory of disease.
The germ theory, which posits that microorganisms like bacteria and viruses are the cause of many diseases, has been widely accepted by mainstream medicine. However, there are alternative frameworks, such as terrain theory, which argues that the body’s internal environment plays a significant role in disease development. The debate about the exact role of viruses in disease transmission continues, with some scientists questioning whether viruses are truly alive or dead, or even whether they exist as traditionally defined. If ordinary people can identify these uncertainties, it’s crucial to ask: how can we trust a global health framework built on such an unsettled premise? If science itself can’t definitively describe or characterise a virus, how can we base global disease responses on a model that remains, in many ways, unclear?
Given these concerns, it may be time for more countries to contemplate severing ties with the WHO. This is not only a matter of health, but also one of sovereignty—nations should have the right to create and implement their own health policies based on what is best for their citizens, without undue influence from external entities. The WHO’s influence during the COVID-19 pandemic was extraordinary, with countries one by one tramping on their citizens’ sovereignty to serve the interests of the WHO. The pandemic revealed how global organisations can exert pressure on governments to enforce top-down health policies, regardless of local conditions or the desires of their people.
The alarming aspect of this situation is the proposed pandemic treaty, which could grant the WHO even more power in the future. This treaty could enable them to enforce sweeping health policies at will, potentially bypassing national governments and undermining their authority. Such a scenario would place the health and freedoms of entire populations in the hands of an unelected, external body—without adequate checks and balances. This prospect makes it even more urgent to reconsider the WHO’s role in global health governance.
It is essential that individual nations retain the ability to govern their own health policies. It’s a delicate balance: global collaboration is important, but it should not come at the expense of national autonomy. Given the troubling developments of the past few years, it may be time for countries like the USA to lead by example and reconsider their relationship with the WHO—not only to protect their own citizens but also to initiate much-needed conversations about reform and accountability in global health governance.
References:
The White House – https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/withdrawing-the-united-states-from-the-worldhealth-organization
Time Magazine – What Leaving the WHO Means for the U.S. and the World – https://time.com/7208937/us-world-health-organization-trump-withdrawal/
This article is copyrighted by Ital is Vital, 2024. Want to re-post this article? Visit our guidelines.
Â
DISCLAIMER: THIS WEBSITE DOES NOT PROVIDE MEDICAL ADVICE
The information, including but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material contained on this website are for informational purposes only. The purpose of this website is to promote broad consumer understanding and knowledge of various health topics. It is not intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Always seek the advice of your physician or other qualified health care provider with any questions you may have regarding a medical condition or treatment and before undertaking a new health care regimen, and never disregard professional medical advice or delay in seeking it because of something you have read on this website.