President Donald J. Trump has signed an executive order initiating the withdrawal of the United States from the World Health Organization (WHO). This decisive action, part of a series of executive orders issued on his first day of his second term, underscores his administration’s focus on reshaping U.S. engagement in global institutions.

This marks the second attempt by the Trump administration to sever ties with the WHO, citing longstanding concerns over the organization's leadership, transparency, and response to global health emergencies. Critics argue the withdrawal could undermine decades of progress in combating infectious diseases such as HIV/AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis, and may weaken international preparedness for future pandemics.

A statement from the White House described the decision as a response to what it called the WHO’s "mishandling of the COVID-19 pandemic," alleging that the organization failed to hold member states accountable for critical lapses during the early days of the outbreak in Wuhan, China. The administration also accused the WHO of resisting much-needed reforms and operating under "inappropriate political influence."

“The American people deserve a global health organization that prioritizes accountability, transparency, and fairness,” the statement read. “Unfortunately, the WHO has repeatedly demonstrated its inability to rise to these challenges, instead imposing undue financial burdens on the United States without delivering proportionate benefits.”

As part of the withdrawal process, President Trump will formally notify the United Nations Secretary-General of the U.S. intent to disengage. The announcement has reignited debates among scientists, policymakers, and global health advocates about the potential risks and benefits of the move.

In response to the Trump administration’s decision, Dr. Pete Baker, Policy Fellow and Deputy Director of Global Health Policy at the Center for Global Development, commented:

“The decision by the Trump administration to withdraw from WHO is highly regrettable. It undermines global health security and risks progress on critical issues like pandemic preparedness and antimicrobial resistance.

“However, it is worth putting the US withdrawal into perspective. The US contributes about 15% of WHO's budget—roughly $600 million a year. The US is also highly restrictive on how WHO can use its money. If other member states or philanthropists step up and provide more flexible funding—even if it’s less than the US provides—this could help WHO be more agile and focused in delivering its mandate.

“The accompanying withdrawal of US support from the Pandemic Agreement negotiations is the bigger threat. The political support of the US for the global health security architecture is irreplaceable. If this continues, it will seriously hamper the world’s efforts to ensure preparedness for future health threats.”

The WHO, which has been at the forefront of tackling some of the world’s most pressing health crises, including the Ebola and Zika outbreaks, has not yet issued an official response to the latest U.S. decision.

While the administration frames the withdrawal as a necessary step to protect U.S. interests, critics warn that this could leave a void in global health leadership at a time when international collaboration is more critical than ever. The move also raises questions about the future of U.S. contributions to global health programs, many of which rely on American funding and expertise.

The decision sets the stage for renewed scrutiny of the role and performance of global health organizations in an increasingly interconnected world, leaving both allies and adversaries to speculate about the broader implications of America’s retreat from the WHO.