Thursday, January 22, 2026 — By Dalena Reporters
The United States, under the administration of President Donald Trump, is poised to formally withdraw from the World Health Organization (WHO) a move that has sparked alarm among health experts, legal scholars and international partners over potential consequences for global disease monitoring, pandemic readiness, and international health cooperation.
According to reporting and official notices, Washington has begun implementing its decision to leave the WHO the United Nations’ specialised agency mandated with coordinating global public health responses such as disease surveillance, vaccine development and emergency outbreak support as part of a broader strategy first announced through executive actions in early 2025.
The U.S. decision to exit the WHO follows an executive order signed by President Trump that initiated a year-long withdrawal process, in compliance with provisions requiring advance notice under U.S. law. Despite this procedural step, legal and financial uncertainties have emerged because Washington has yet to settle its outstanding financial obligations estimated at roughly $260 million in unpaid dues a requirement under domestic law that critics argue could make the withdrawal legally contentious.
Public health and legal experts say the move raises questions about the U.S. government’s commitment to both domestic and global health frameworks. Some argue that a failure to fully satisfy membership obligations and engage through multilateral institutions may violate statutory expectations, while supporters of the withdrawal frame it as a sovereignty-based recalibration of America’s role in global governance.
The WHO has historically played a central role in coordinating international responses to infectious disease outbreaks from influenza and Ebola to polio and pandemic preparedness. With the United States now setting its exit into motion, critics warn that loss of formal membership could diminish U.S. access to real-time health data, limit scientific collaboration, and impede efforts to align vaccine strategies and outbreak intelligence with global partners.
Analysts note that the U.S. departure may “undermine global ability to mobilise against emerging health threats” and that remaining outside key WHO systems could create an “information silo” for American public health institutions, even as the U.S. pursues bilateral arrangements with other countries.
Public health officials, non-governmental groups, and leaders in other countries have expressed concern about the implications of the U.S. move. International critics warn the departure threatens decades of collective progress on disease eradication and coordinated pandemic response, and could force the WHO to scale back initiatives or reduce staffing due to the loss of its largest financial contributor.
Within the U.S., proponents of the exit argue it reflects necessary reform of international structures and prioritises American sovereignty in health policy, but detractors, including legal commentators and epidemiologists, caution that the decision could weaken both global and domestic disease readiness and harm collaborative scientific research.
As the withdrawal process unfolds, the U.S. government must still address unresolved matters such as unpaid dues and negotiate how it will engage with global disease networks in a post-WHO landscape. Meanwhile, the WHO and its members are expected to discuss the procedural and legal ramifications of the U.S. exit at upcoming governance meetings, even as the organisation moves to adjust to a potentially significant funding gap.
The evolving situation underscores a pivotal shift in global health architecture at a time when the world continues to grapple with both lingering pandemic threats and ongoing challenges from endemic diseases. Observers say the long-term impact of the U.S. withdrawal on international health cooperation and emergency response may become clearer only in the months and years ahead.