top of page

Trump’s WHO Exit: Global Health, Legal Fallout, and the Future of U.S Influence

Kristabel Ibuaka


Words by Law City Intern, Kristabel Ibuaka


Trump wasted no time after his inauguration in quickly signing a series of executive orders. It comes as no surprise that upon resuming his role as the 47th president, he has once again taken steps to withdraw the United States from the World Health Organisation (WHO). On January 21st, 2025, Trump signed the executive order to begin this process.


Here are the key reasons behind his decision:


  • In 2020, the U.S announced its withdrawal from the WHO, citing the organisation’s mishandling of the COVID 19 pandemic and other global crises.

  • The US criticised the WHO for not implementing necessary reforms and for lacking independence from political influence by member states.

  • The WHO was accused of imposing disproportionately high financial contributions on the US compared to other countries.

  • Striking statistics show that although China’s population is three times larger than that of the United States, it contributes nearly 90% less to the WHO’s budget. This disparity has raised concerns about fairness, as Trump described it as the country being “ripped off.”


Déjà vu or Definite Exit?


During Trump’s first administration it was announced that the US would leave the WHO in July 2020, however that executive order was blocked by the incoming Biden administration in January 2021. With his latest Executive order Section 2 is flipping the script, revoking the presidential letter sent to the UN secretary General in January 2021 undoing the reversal of the initial withdrawal attempt on July 6th, 2020. Trump’s rushed decision to revive the U.S. withdrawal from the WHO on his first day in office heightens the risk of a formal exit, raising concerns about the potential consequences of such a hasty approach.

Furthermore, Section 4 of Trump’s new executive order has firmly directed the U.S. to cease all negotiations on the WHO’s pandemic agreement and proposed changes to international health regulations. As a result of this action, any decisions related to these agreements will not be legally binding on the US.


If the WHO is out, What’s in?


National Security Advisor to Enhance Public Health and Biosecurity


The executive order has directed the assistant to the president for National Security Affairs to establish directorates and coordinate mechanisms within the national security apparatus as he deems necessary and appropriate to safeguard public health and fortifying bio security.


US Suspends Additional Funding and Support to WHO


The secretary of state and Director of office management and budget shall take appropriate measures to pause the further transfer of any US funds, support, or resources to the WHO.


Personnel Recall & Reassignment within the WHO


All U.S. staff and contractors currently working within the WHO will be recalled and reassigned. This includes personnel stationed in Geneva, where the U.S. Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has maintained a significant presence, with approximately 30 staff members seconded to WHO headquarters. These individuals have been instrumental in collaborative research and global health outbreak response efforts, highlighting the strong partnership between the two organisations and how withdrawal could create significant disruption to critical communication channels.


US Initiates Worldwide Hunt for WHO Alternatives


The US is now in the business of headhunting public health, seeking reliable candidates and frameworks to fill the large shoes of the WHO. The secretary of state has been tasked with what might be described as a “global talent acquisition mission” – as this executive order directs the secretary of state to identify credible and transparent parties both domestically and internationally to take over responsibilities once entrusted to the WHO.


This move signals a strategic pivot as the US aims to build its own coalition of trusted partners that aligns with its vision of health governance, and reflects the administrations focus on national sovereignty.


Legal Prosperity or Fallout? The future of US influence


The WHO’s constitution does not prohibit member states from withdrawing, meaning the U.S.'s decision to exit is not in violation of international law. However, the process is not as simple as issuing an executive order. Since there's no specific withdrawal clause, the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties provides general rules for withdrawal from international agreements.


Although the U.S. has not ratified the Vienna Convention, it considers many of its provisions as customary international law. Under Article 54 of the Convention, a country can withdraw from a treaty if all parties agree. However, if other WHO members do not consent to an immediate U.S. withdrawal, Article 56 applies, requiring the U.S. to give 12 months’ notice before leaving, provided the treaty allows for withdrawal or it was the original intention of the parties. The US would also be obliged to settle all outstanding financial commitments before fully severing ties.


This requirement poses a significant challenge, given that President Trump had directed the cessation of U.S. funding and support to the WHO. The stakes are high as the Biden administration maintained the U.S. as the WHO’s largest contributor, providing a substantial US$ 1.284 billion during the 2022–2023 biennium. As the top donor and key partner, the U.S.'s abrupt departure leaves a gaping financial hole, raising widespread concerns about whether other nations will step up to fill the void. The likelihood of this happening remains uncertain at best, and the shortfall could jeopardise crucial global health initiatives.


Beyond financial concerns, the Trump administration's unilateral approach could invite legal challenges, as failing to meet the WHO’s financial obligations and lacking clear congressional consensus may result in lawsuits that could further complicate or delay the withdrawal process. The situation underscores the potential for diplomatic friction and legal entanglements that could prolong the U.S.'s departure from the organisation.


A sudden loss of U.S. funding could jeopardise critical health programs, including vaccination campaigns, disease surveillance, and emergency response efforts—many of which rely heavily on American support. This could significantly hinder progress in combating infectious diseases such as malaria, tuberculosis, and HIV/AIDS, while also limiting the ability to detect and respond to emerging threats like the bird flu, which the WHO is currently addressing.


Some argue that an overly optimistic view of the withdrawal suggests it could drive meaningful reforms within the WHO. Losing one of its most significant contributors might push the organisation to reassess its structure and operations, potentially leading to improvements that better serve global public health needs. In anticipation of the financial gap left by a U.S. exit, the WHO is already taking steps to mitigate the impact. According to WHO spokesperson Tarik Jasarevic, the organisation is planning an investment round to diversify its funding sources, aiming for more sustainable contributions from member states and private entities.


While some may hope for positive change, the broader implications of risks to global health security, disease control efforts, and America’s own public health interests cannot be overlooked. Whether this decision will lead to meaningful reform or prove to be a costly mistake remains to be seen.

Comments


bottom of page