Trump’s Plan to Abandon the WHO Is a Health Disaster

In the summer of 2020, 15 recognized leaders in US public health joined the author an article in The Lancet – one of the most eminent medical journals in the world – denouncing the intention of Donald Trump to withdraw the United States from the World Health Organization, a decision that was later canceled by President Biden before it entered into force.

Almost five years later, one of the opening salvos of Trump’s second term has been again start the withdrawal process the United States from the WHO. The move has already attracted both controversy and the threat of legal challenges.

According to a 1948 joint resolution approved by both houses of Congress, any withdrawal of such requirement of the United States to provide the WHO with a year’s notice, but it seems that Trump’s intention is to withdraw immediately and do without seeking the approval of the Congress.

“The executive order announces immediate withdrawal from the WHO, and does not seek congressional authorization, and does not even give the required one-year notice,” said Lawrence Gostin, professor of public health law at the Georgetown University Law Center in Washington, DC. and one of the co-authors of the Lancet 2020 article. “In my view, this is reckless and illegal, and should be challenged in court.”

Trump has a long history of criticizing the WHO, first accusing the organization of being “corrupt”, ripping off America, and “managing very badly and covering up” the spread of Covid-19. The United States has historically been one of the WHO’s largest funders, with some estimates suggesting that it provides a fifth of the organization’s total budget. Between 2022 and 2023, the United States will supply the WHO almost $1.3 billion.

However, Gostin and others are particularly concerned about the impacts of a US withdrawal on the country’s ability to manage the ongoing threat of infectious diseases. While the WHO has a far-reaching mission, ranging from advice on essential medicines to public policy recommendations on everything from tobacco and drug use to road safety, it is arguably the most impactful when it comes to the surveillance of potentially problematic new diseases such as avian influenza and the coordination of an international response.

“Withdrawal from WHO makes us lonelier, more vulnerable and more fragile in the world,” says Gostin. “You can’t close a border against a pathogen. We need the WHO to be on the ground to put out the fires before they reach the United States. And we also need the vast network of the WHO to provide the information about mutations and viruses that we need to develop life-saving vaccines and medical treatments.”

According to Sten Vermund, chief medical officer of the Global Virus Network and another co-author of the Lancet article, what happens next depends on the reactions of other countries and non-governmental organizations such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the World Bank and Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, all of which provide WHO with significant funding. After Trump cut US contributions to WHO to $680 million in 2020-21, Germany answered quadrupling its contributions to more than $1 billion. The Danish government also agreed to double their contributions, placing a strong emphasis on improving sexual and reproductive health and addressing the increase in non-communicable diseases.