President Donald Trump’s decision to suspend U.S. funding to the World Health Organization (W.H.O.) has drawn sharp reactions from global leaders and health experts. The move, which also includes the withdrawal of U.S. personnel from the organization, has sparked concerns about the future of global health initiatives and the W.H.O.’s ability to respond effectively to health emergencies.
The United States is the largest single contributor to the W.H.O., accounting for approximately 14% of the agency’s $6.9 billion budget for the 2024-2025 period. The U.S. pledged $988 million during this period, with a significant portion allocated to the Health Emergencies Programme, which supports outbreak preparedness, disease control, and emergency response.
According to recent budget documents, the W.H.O. relies heavily on U.S. contributions for critical health initiatives, particularly those related to infectious disease outbreaks and pandemic preparedness. The Health Emergencies Programme, which addresses global crises like Ebola, Zika, and COVID-19, is particularly vulnerable to funding cuts.
W.H.O. Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus expressed serious concerns about the financial repercussions of the U.S. withdrawal. Speaking at a recent executive board meeting, Tedros warned that the organization faces a significant budget deficit without U.S. funding.
“The U.S. is not just a major contributor—it is a leader in global health. This decision will undoubtedly affect our ability to support vulnerable populations and respond to future emergencies,” Tedros stated.
He urged member nations to engage with U.S. officials and encourage them to reconsider the decision, emphasizing that continued collaboration is vital for global health security.
Despite the funding freeze, Tedros confirmed that the W.H.O. continues to share some data with U.S. scientists, though the specifics remain unclear.
“We continue to give them information because they need it,” Tedros explained during a financial meeting. “We hope that ongoing dialogue can lead to a resolution.”
President Trump’s decision to cut off funding stems from his long-standing criticism of the W.H.O., which he has accused of mismanagement and bias toward China. During the signing of the executive order on January 20, Trump highlighted the disparity in financial contributions between the U.S. and China.
“The U.S. paid $500 million to the W.H.O. during my first term,” Trump said. “Meanwhile, China, with a much larger population, contributed just $39 million. That’s a big one—totally unfair.”
Trump’s frustration with the W.H.O. intensified during the COVID-19 pandemic, when he accused the organization of failing to hold China accountable for its early handling of the outbreak. Critics within the Trump administration argued that the W.H.O.’s response was slow and lacked transparency, which contributed to the global spread of the virus.
The executive order marks a broader push by Trump to reform international organizations and demand more equitable financial contributions from member states.
The U.S. withdrawal from the W.H.O. raises significant questions about the future of international cooperation in health emergencies. Without U.S. funding and expertise, many of the W.H.O.’s programs are at risk of scaling back or halting altogether.
Key programs likely to be affected include:
- Vaccine distribution efforts in low-income countries.
- Disease surveillance systems that track emerging health threats.
- Outbreak response teams, particularly in conflict zones and regions prone to epidemics.
Global health experts warn that the funding cut could weaken the world’s ability to respond to future pandemics. The W.H.O. plays a crucial role in coordinating global responses to health crises, providing technical guidance, and facilitating the distribution of vaccines and treatments.
Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, expressed concerns about the long-term impact of the decision.
“Global health security is a shared responsibility. The W.H.O. has its flaws, but cutting ties at this critical juncture could leave us more vulnerable to future health threats.”
While critics argue that Trump’s move could undermine global health, his supporters believe it is a necessary step toward reforming the organization. They point to longstanding issues within the W.H.O., including concerns about bureaucratic inefficiency, lack of transparency, and disproportionate influence from certain member states.
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo defended the decision, calling it an opportunity to push for a more accountable and effective W.H.O.
“We want to see reforms that ensure the organization serves the interests of all nations fairly and transparently,” Pompeo said. “The current structure does not reflect the financial contributions made by the U.S. compared to other nations.”
As the W.H.O. grapples with the loss of U.S. funding, it is exploring alternative funding sources to bridge the gap. Member states, private foundations, and philanthropic organizations may be called upon to increase their contributions.
Several countries, including Germany, the United Kingdom, and Japan, have already pledged additional funds to support the W.H.O. Germany recently announced a €500 million commitment to strengthen global health initiatives. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, a significant donor to the W.H.O., has also pledged to increase its support.
However, experts caution that these contributions may not be enough to fully replace U.S. funding. The situation underscores the need for a more sustainable and diversified financial model for global health governance.
The U.S. decision to suspend funding to the W.H.O. represents a turning point for global health diplomacy. It raises important questions about fairness, accountability, and the future of international cooperation in addressing health crises.
While the W.H.O. faces significant challenges in adapting to this new financial reality, it also presents an opportunity for the organization to reflect on its governance and improve its operations. The outcome of ongoing discussions among global health leaders will shape the future of the W.H.O. and its ability to protect global health in the years to come.
The stakes are high, and the world will be watching closely to see how the W.H.O. navigates this unprecedented crisis. Will it emerge stronger and more resilient, or will the loss of U.S. support hinder its ability to fulfill its mission? Only time will tell.