President Donald Trump’s announcement that the United States is withdrawing from the World Health Organization stems from the organization’s repeated failures in managing global health crises, its resistance to necessary reforms, and its subservience to undue political influence from certain member states.
As the largest financial contributor to the WHO, the U.S. provides most of the organization’s funding, amounting to more than $367 million of voluntary contributions, compared to China’s paltry sum of less than $4 million. The U.S. is also scheduled to pay out more than $260 million of assessed contributions in 2024 and 2025. This disproportionate funding, coupled with the WHO’s mismanagement, underscores why the U.S. must reevaluate its involvement with the organization entirely.
The COVID-19 pandemic exposed the WHO’s inadequacies on a global stage. Early in the crisis, the organization echoed Chinese Communist Party propaganda, downplaying the severity of the outbreak and delaying the declaration of a global health emergency. Meanwhile, brave whistleblowers in China, including doctors attempting to alert the world to the emerging threat, were silenced.
Beyond its communication failures, the WHO’s pandemic response was marred by inefficiency and waste. Reports reveal that the organization spent $200 million annually on luxury travel, including first-class flights and five-star accommodations, a glaring misuse of funds meant to address urgent health crises. The U.S. taxpayer’s contribution is thus squandered on administrative extravagance rather than meaningful health initiatives.
Adding to these concerns is the WHO’s push for a new pandemic treaty, which would centralize global health decision-making under its authority. Given its failure during the COVID-19 pandemic, entrusting the WHO with even greater responsibility is both unwise and dangerous. Critics argue that this treaty would grant the organization sweeping powers over member states’ public health policies, undermining national sovereignty and accountability.
The WHO’s track record with its existing health treaty, the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, offers little reassurance. Since the FCTC’s implementation in 2005, the global number of tobacco users has risen from 1.1 billion to 1.3 billion. Studies published in reputable journals such as the British Medical Journal and the Lancet have criticized the treaty for its ineffectiveness, particularly in low-income countries. Despite this, the U.S. indirectly funds the FCTC Secretariat through extra-budgetary contributions from agencies such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration, raising questions about accountability and oversight.
The WHO’s culture of censorship and secrecy further erodes its credibility. The FCTC has consistently excluded stakeholders from its decision-making processes. For example, at a global conference in 2012, Interpol, a global law enforcement agency set up to “share and access data on crimes and criminals” and “offer a range of technical and operational support,” was denied observer status because it was collaborating with the tobacco industry on combating illicit trade. Additionally, the FCTC’s Conferences of the Parties meetings are held behind closed doors, barring public and press access. Such practices are antithetical to the principles of transparency and inclusivity that should guide global health governance.
The financial disparity between member states’ contributions to the WHO is glaring. While the U.S. bears the brunt of funding, countries such as China, with a population three times that of the U.S., contribute a mere fraction. This imbalance allows states with minimal financial stakes to wield disproportionate influence over the organization’s policies. The WHO’s reluctance to confront China over its handling of COVID-19 exemplifies how political considerations can compromise its effectiveness.
Given these systemic problems, the U.S. is justified in reconsidering its relationship with the WHO. Terminating funding and withdrawing from the organization sends a clear message that American taxpayers will no longer subsidize an institution that prioritizes political agendas over public health.
Moreover, the U.S. should halt all involvement of its government agencies and charities with the WHO. For example, the FDA’s funding of the Global Tobacco Regulators Forum exemplifies how U.S. resources are funneled into opaque and exclusionary initiatives. The GTRF, a select group of countries that influence FCTC policies, operates without transparency, undermining the integrity of global health governance.
While withdrawing from the WHO, the U.S. must simultaneously invest in alternative mechanisms for global health collaboration. Bilateral partnerships, regional coalitions, and support for nongovernmental organizations can ensure the U.S. continues to play a leading role in addressing global health challenges without being tethered to a dysfunctional institution.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
The decision to withdraw from the WHO is not without its detractors, who argue that disengagement could weaken global health efforts. However, the status quo is untenable. Reforming the WHO from within has proven futile, and continued engagement only perpetuates its inefficiencies and political biases.
By severing ties with the WHO, the U.S. can redirect its resources toward more effective and accountable initiatives, setting a new standard for global health leadership. It is a bold but necessary step to ensure American contributions to global health are used responsibly and effectively, free from the constraints of an organization that has lost its way.
Martin Cullip is an international fellow at the Taxpayers Protection Alliance’s Consumer Center and is based in South London, U.K.