On January 20, 2025, hours after being inaugurated for his second term, President Donald Trump set the stage for considerable shifts in global health governance by announcing the United States’ formal withdrawal from the World Health Organization (WHO). This executive decision, following years of tumultuous U.S.-WHO relations under Trump’s previous administration, signals not just the end of American leadership at the agency but also invites questions about the future of global public health.
Critics are sounding alarms, characterizing the withdrawal as ‘cataclysmic’ and ‘an enormous mistake’. They argue it jeopardizes not only U.S. public health interests but also compromises global health initiatives. The WHO, founded with U.S. support after World War II, has long been credited with successes such as the eradication of smallpox and the reduction of polio globally, underscoring the pivotal role the U.S. has played as the largest donor and most influential member. Trump’s actions, which include halting U.S. funding and withdrawing from key global health agreements, represent a departure from this collaborative spirit.
According to experts, the immediate fallout of the U.S. withdrawal could significantly hamper the WHO’s ability to respond to health emergencies and facilitate global health initiatives. Current funding supports programs for diseases such as tuberculosis, HIV, and polio—all severely impacted by the anticipated funding cuts. Public health officials warn, “It’s the people of the world who will lose out, it’s global health,” reflecting the broader consequences of the U.S. stepping back from its role as a key player on the global stage.
Trump’s administration has cited the WHO’s alleged mishandling of the COVID-19 pandemic as justification for its decision to withdraw. Trump’s executive order criticizes the organization for being unduly influenced by China and for imposing what he describes as ‘unfair burdens’ on the U.S. The order purportedly directs officials to find credible partners to replace the WHO’s activities, but critics dismiss this as unrealistic, warning it could lead the U.S. to cede power to China.
“If your true concern is the WHO being captured by China, withdrawing the U.S. just seals the deal,” warned Jeremy Konyndyk, president of Refugees International. Trump’s argument about financial contributions also seems to overlook the complexity of the WHO’s funding structure. While the U.S. does contribute far more than China, the Chinese government has shown increasing interest in strengthening its position within international organizations.
China’s strategy, which involves leveraging bilateral relations and investment rather than matching U.S. contributions, highlights the potential for it to step up as the primary contributor to WHO initiatives. Even during earlier funding crises, China swiftly pledged additional funding, reflecting its readiness to fill gaps left by U.S. withdrawal. Trump’s departure could catalyze this shift, reshaping the global health governance model.
The stakes are high—not just for public health, but for geopolitical power dynamics as well. Critics argue Trump’s approach could lead to increased influence for adversaries like China and Russia, especially as these nations have historically resented U.S.-led global governance. China’s increasing activity through its Health Silk Road initiative and strategic partnerships may prove beneficial, enhancing its soft power and appeal among developing nations.
Under Trump’s vision, which aligns more closely with old-school power politics, he has rekindled American ambitions reminiscent of territorial expansions seen throughout U.S. history. This pivot raises significant questions about how America’s allies will respond: will they align more closely with the U.S., or could they turn to China and Russia for support and guidance?
“The post-war global order is not just obsolete; it has become weaponized against us,” said Secretary of State Marco Rubio during his confirmation hearing, which highlights the current administration’s sentiment surrounding traditional alliances and commitments.
Despite the potential for domestic political ramifications, evidence suggests many countries are anxious to maintain ties with the U.S. While renewed alliances and promises of greater cooperation have surfaced, many nations are also weighing the benefits of working with China, which has positioned itself as the compassionate partner willing to support development initiatives with fewer strings attached.
All eyes are now on how global leadership will shift following Trump’s decisions. With geopolitical tensions rising, the effects of withdrawing from global health institutions like the WHO could have far-wider consequences, as countries adjust their foreign policies and global health strategies amid uncertainty. Economically, Trump’s inclination to employ tariffs and economic pressure as tools of diplomacy can either produce short-term compliance from countries or lead to long-term animosities and trade disputes.
Trump’s decisions do not merely entail withdrawing from the WHO; they denote broader shifts away from multilateralism. This has allowed China to position itself as the provider of health supplies and expertise, particularly evident during the COVID-19 pandemic. The WHO’s ability to monitor global health threats effectively hinges on cooperation and assistance from multiple nations. Trump’s decision against engaging with WHO initiatives may leave the organization not only starved of resources but also blamed for any resultant health crises worldwide.
The impact of Trump’s renewed foreign policy vision is yet to fully materialize, but it carries the potential for moving the world toward a less interconnected future. If Trump’s approach prevails, the world may revert to unilateral initiatives driven by national interests at the expense of collaborative global health strategies.
One thing is certain: Trump’s actions will alter the course of international power dynamics as the U.S. navigates its role, alongside allies wary of increased Chinese influence and the dramatic shifts within public health systems. The question remains, will the U.S. retreating from global leadership lead to greater regional instability, or could it incite new partnerships and collaborations? The world is watching, and the answers could reshape the very foundations of global governance.
link
