The U.S. withdrawal from the World Health Organization, announced by President Trump, creates uncertainty within the agency regarding budget and operations. While some experts remain optimistic about the WHO’s resilience, concerns dominate about funding cuts and the precedence set for other nations. The potential impacts on global health coordination amid Trump’s criticisms of the WHO’s effectiveness highlight the complexities of international health governance.

The announcement by U.S. President Donald Trump regarding the withdrawal of the United States from the World Health Organization (WHO) caught few health-policy experts off guard. Although Trump indicated he might reconsider this withdrawal under unspecified conditions, the next steps remain uncertain. Jesse Bump, a researcher at Harvard University, commented on Trump’s tactics, suggesting that any potential advantage to him is not easily identifiable in the short term regarding the WHO.

The U.S. exit from the WHO is not set to become official until January 2026, which introduces several months of unpredictability concerning the agency’s strategic direction and budget. Established under the United Nations, the WHO is tasked with promoting universal health coverage and managing global health emergencies. Senior figures in global health have been consulted to predict the potential impact on the agency’s future.

Some experts express optimism about WHO’s durability, citing its strong foundation. Robert Yates from the London School of Economics noted that with support from other Western nations, the organization could emerge stronger. However, the U.S. contributes approximately 18% to the WHO’s annual budget of around $3.4 billion, and the current uncertainty is already affecting operations.

WHO’s Director-General, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, acknowledged that the agency planned budget cuts even before Trump’s announcement due to donor country financial struggles, and U.S. withdrawal has exacerbated these issues. Ilona Kickbusch, a political scientist specializing in health, highlighted that the situation has grounded WHO staff, leading to the cancellation of many meetings and travel plans essential for negotiations and collaboration.

Currently, the WHO is engaged in various projects, including a Europe-wide initiative to enhance mental health services and a response operation in the eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo amid violence. The complexity of the WHO’s functions is often underestimated, with Kickbusch noting that for Trump, the organization seems merely like a bureaucracy in Geneva, while its operations are intricately complex.

Trump has voiced several grievances against the WHO, criticizing its management of the COVID-19 pandemic and its pace of reform. He referenced a perceived lack of independence from political influences exerted by member states as part of the justification for his actions.

Funding for specific WHO regional offices may continue independently of the U.S. withdrawal, particularly the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO), which receives separate funding from the U.S. government. David Heymann, an infectious-disease researcher, suggested that the U.S. may still fund regional initiatives bilaterally rather than through the WHO framework, allowing for ongoing technical support through designated collaborating centers.

Widespread U.S. withdrawal may set a concerning precedent for other nations, as seen with Argentina’s recent announcement to exit the organization while expressing continued support for PAHO. Former Argentine health minister Adolfo Rubinstein stated that withdrawing from WHO would diminish critical international support for addressing future global health crises.

Concerns have been raised that other populist leaders might follow suit, although Lawrence Gostin, director at the WHO Collaborating Center for National and Global Health Law, anticipates that the majority of nations will likely remain affiliated with the WHO, possibly reinforcing its significance amidst such discontent.

The proposed U.S. withdrawal from the WHO brings to light significant implications for global health governance, especially with regard to budgetary uncertainties and operational capabilities. Experts express both concern and cautious optimism about the organization’s ability to adapt and thrive. The situation underscores the complex interplay of national decisions impacting international health efforts and the need for continued collaboration among member states to address global health challenges effectively.

Original Source: www.nature.com

Related posts:

Trade Dynamics: Response of Mexico, Canada, and China to U.S. Tariffs Argentina to Withdraw from World Health Organization under President Milei Argentina’s President Javier Milei Orders Withdrawal from WHO China-U.S. Trade Dispute Tests Washington’s Commitment to WTO