Today marks a watershed moment in global public health governance as the United States’ withdrawal from the World Health Organisation (WHO) formally takes effect, exactly one year after President Donald Trump ordered the country’s exit from the Geneva-based United Nations agency. The move, which has been widely debated and criticised by health experts, diplomats, and international partners, signals a dramatic shift in the world’s largest economy’s approach to multilateral health cooperation and raises far-reaching questions about global disease surveillance, emergency preparedness, and international solidarity.
DDM NEWS reports that the withdrawal became effective after the expiration of the mandatory one-year notice period stipulated in the agreement governing the United States’ membership in the WHO. Although the decision was signed off by President Trump just hours after his return to office, its implementation was delayed by the procedural requirement, a safeguard designed to prevent abrupt disengagement from the organisation.
In theory, the U.S. exit is not without controversy even at the technical level. One of the conditions tied to withdrawal under the agreement was the full settlement of outstanding financial obligations to the organisation. By that standard, the United States has not fully complied, having failed to pay its assessed contributions for 2024 and 2025, which together amount to roughly $280 million. Despite this shortfall, the WHO lacks any legal mechanism to compel payment or to block the withdrawal, leaving the organisation with no option but to accept the departure.
Reacting to the development in Geneva, WHO Director-General Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus expressed deep regret over the decision and renewed his appeal for Washington to reconsider. “I hope that the United States will reconsider its decision and rejoin WHO,” he said, stressing that the consequences extend far beyond financial considerations. According to Dr. Tedros, the withdrawal represents a collective loss at a time when global cooperation is more critical than ever.
“Withdrawal is a loss for the United States, and it is also a loss for the rest of the world,” the WHO chief stated, adding that the issue at stake is not merely funding but the principle of cooperation and shared responsibility in protecting global health. DDM NEWS notes that Dr. Tedros’ comments reflect growing concern within the international community that fragmentation could undermine decades of progress in coordinating responses to health threats that do not respect national borders.
The WHO plays a central role in global disease surveillance, operating early warning systems that detect and track outbreaks of potentially dangerous illnesses. Through its global networks, the organisation gathers data, analyses trends, and alerts member states to emerging threats before they spiral into full-scale crises. With the United States now officially outside the system, the world loses not only a major financial contributor but also a critical source of scientific expertise, research capacity, and technical leadership.
Another significant function affected by the U.S. withdrawal is the coordination of seasonal influenza vaccines. Each year, the WHO analyses data on circulating flu strains from across the globe and makes recommendations on the composition of vaccines for the upcoming season. The United States, with its extensive public health infrastructure and advanced laboratories, has historically played a key role in this process. Its absence means that both the WHO and its remaining members must adapt to a system without American participation, a gap that experts warn could have implications for vaccine effectiveness and global preparedness.
President Trump’s antagonism toward the WHO dates back to the COVID-19 pandemic, a period that fundamentally reshaped global politics and public health. During his first term in office, Trump repeatedly accused the organisation of mismanaging the pandemic and being overly deferential to China. He attempted to pull the United States out of the WHO in 2020, but the effort was halted when his successor, President Joe Biden, assumed office before the one-year notice period elapsed and promptly reversed the decision.
DDM NEWS recalls that Trump’s return to the White House revived his long-standing grievances with the WHO. He has consistently argued that the organisation misused funds, failed to act decisively in the early stages of the coronavirus outbreak, and did not serve U.S. interests. Upon resuming office, his administration withheld payment of outstanding membership fees, reinforcing the administration’s position that continued participation was neither justified nor desirable.
For years prior to the withdrawal, the United States had been the WHO’s single largest contributor. Beyond its assessed membership dues, Washington regularly provided substantial voluntary contributions, often accounting for more than 15 per cent of the organisation’s total budget. These funds supported a wide range of programmes, from disease eradication campaigns to health system strengthening in low- and middle-income countries. The sudden disappearance of such a significant funding stream has forced the WHO to confront difficult financial realities.
As a direct consequence, the organisation has embarked on a strict austerity programme. DDM NEWS understands that by the middle of 2026, the WHO’s workforce is expected to shrink by around 20 per cent, falling to approximately 7,300 employees compared to early 2025. Budget reductions of a similar magnitude are already underway, prompting internal restructuring and the scaling back of some activities. While WHO officials insist that core functions will be preserved, critics fear that reduced capacity could weaken the global health system’s ability to respond swiftly to emergencies.
The U.S. withdrawal also carries symbolic weight. At a time when the world continues to grapple with the aftershocks of COVID-19 and faces ongoing threats from emerging infectious diseases, climate-related health risks, and antimicrobial resistance, the departure of a major power from the world’s leading health body sends a troubling signal. Many analysts argue that it could embolden other countries to disengage from multilateral institutions, further eroding the framework of global cooperation built over decades.
Within the United States, reactions to the withdrawal remain sharply divided. Supporters of President Trump view the move as a necessary assertion of national sovereignty and fiscal responsibility, arguing that U.S. funds should not support an organisation they believe failed during a critical moment in history. Opponents, however, warn that walking away from the WHO undermines America’s own health security, as diseases that emerge abroad can quickly reach U.S. shores.
As the withdrawal takes effect today, the full consequences are yet to be seen. What is clear, according to DDM NEWS, is that the decision marks a profound shift in the global health landscape. Whether the United States will eventually return to the WHO, as Dr. Tedros and many world leaders hope, or chart a separate path in international health cooperation remains an open question. For now, the world enters a new and uncertain chapter, one in which collaboration is tested at a moment when shared challenges demand collective solutions more than ever.
