United States Out of the World Health Organization

One of the first things President Trump did on the first day of his second term in office was sign an Executive Order giving notice that the United States would withdraw from membership in the World Health Organization (WHO). The move, which came just hours after his inauguration on Jan. 20, 2025, had been expected.^{1 2 3 4}

The U.S. government had previously notified the United Nations of its withdrawal from the WHO during the first Trump administration, and that withdrawal was to have taken effect on July 6, 2021, but the incoming Biden administration reversed the withdrawal on Jan. 20, 2021.^{1 5}

Among the reasons cited by the Trump administration for the withdrawal of the U.S. from the United Nations are the WHO’s “mishandling of the COVID-19 pandemic” and “other global health crises,” as well as the international organization’s “failure to adopt urgently needed reforms” and its “inability to demonstrate independence from the inappropriate political influence” of other member countries. Another concern has been the disproportionate membership dues paid by the U.S. government compared to assessed payments by other WHO members. The Trump administration has often noted that China, with a population of 1.4 billion, has a 300 percent larger population than the U.S. but contributes nearly 90 percent less than the U.S. contributes to the WHO.²

Efforts to Reverse U.S. Decision to Leave WHO Fail

During 2025, there were several attempts by WHO officials and other global health professionals to get the U.S. government to reconsider its decision to quit the organization. A prepared statement issued by the WHO on Dec. 12, 2025 urged the U.S. to continue to engage with WHO officials:

We hope the United States will reconsider and we look forward to engaging in constructive dialogue to maintain the partnership between the USA and WHO, for the benefit of the health and well-being of millions of people around the globe.^{4 6 8}

The WHO’s Director-General, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, said:

There are things you can get only at the WHO and nowhere else. These issues are health security issues, and that’s why we were asking the U.S. to reconsider, because the world can only be secure if we are all on the same platform.⁴

According to a Reuters report, Director-General Tedros said U.S. criticisms of the WHO were “unfounded,” and that he had noted the organization had “addressed these concerns, including through cost-cutting reforms.” With regard to U.S. allegations of mismanaging the COVID pandemic and the issue of U.S. dues, Tedros reportedly said “lessons had been learned” and that the U.S. should “contribute less in order to reduce” the WHO’s “dependence on a single donor.”⁴ But to no avail.

On May 19, 2025, the WHO held its annual World Health Assembly in Geneva, Switzerland, and for the first time since the founding of the organization 1948, the U.S. was absent. The latest U.S. withdrawal effort was officially completed as of Jan. 22, 2026 and the U.S. is no longer a member of the WHO.^{7 8}

U.S. Absence Will Leave Power Vacuum

The U.S. departure will leave the WHO with a big hole in its budget. Of the WHO’s budget of $6.5 billion for 2024-2025, the U.S. had pledged to contribute nearly 15 percent ($958 million) of that amount. Last year, given its new “financial constraints, the WHO had initially lowered its budget for 2026-2027 to $5.3 billion. It has since been forced to further reduce its spending for the next two years by 22 percent, down to $4.2 billion.^{8 9 10}

According to Tedros, the WHO has been cutting positions over the past year, including 2,371 of its 9,000 employees worldwide by June 2026 and about half of its senior leadership team, and is “scaling back” programs around the world. What will be noticed most will be dramatic “cuts in emergency programs that enable countries to respond quickly to [disease] outbreaks,” said Christoph Benn, MD, MPH, director of Global Health Diplomacy at the Joep Lange Institute in Amsterdam. Currently, some 88 percent of the WHO’s budget is allocated for programs like polio and malaria eradication in specific regions.^{7 11}

The loss of the U.S. also leaves the WHO with a vacuum in terms of leadership. “When the United States wanted something, it could lead and influence like no other country, including our rivals, like China or Russia,” said Lawrence Gostin, JD, professor of law at Georgetown University. “The U.S. won’t be there to have that kind of influence now and for the foreseeable future.”⁷

“What emerges in that vacuum of U.S. leadership is still unclear,” said Jonathan Lambert of National Public Radio. Obviously, a likely contender to replace the U.S. is China, which has already pledged $5 billion to the WHO over the next five years, making it the top contributor now.^{7 11}

WHO Engaged in “Power Grab”

While there may be some downsides to opting out of the WHO, there are clearly some significant downsides of remaining in the organization, notably the sacrificing of national sovereignty as reflected in the amendments to the WHO’s International Health Regulations (IHR) and the WHO Pandemic Treaty, adopted by its member countries (not including the U.S.) at the World Health Assembly forum on May 20, 2025.

The amendments and the treaty will “greatly expand the authority of the World Health Organization,” wrote Barbara Loe Fisher, cofounder and president of the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), in 2024. “Governments signing a proposed WHO pandemic treaty will be legally bound to follow the orders of WHO officials whenever the global health agency declares another pandemic public health emergency.”¹²

Fisher added:

The proposed new International Health Regulations would give WHO health officials the authority to require you to use biological products labeled “vaccines,” and be tracked and undergo medical exams, quarantine and medical treatment. The proposed pandemic treaty would also greatly expand the authority of UN health officials to globally censor what they consider to be “mis-information” and “disinformation” about diseases and vaccines so you are not allowed to publicly criticize vaccine science, policy and law, which violates your First Amendment rights under the U.S. Constitution.¹²

Fisher describes it as a “power grab” by WHO officials.^{12 13} She emphasized:

We are a sovereign people and make our own laws and will not salute leaders of the global Public Health Empire, who are opposed to provisions in the U.S. Constitution that protect individual autonomy and guarantee Americans freedom of speech, thought and conscience.¹²

In January 2019, a year before the COVID pandemic declaration by WHO, Fisher reviewed the history of the WHO since 1948 and its biggest funders that, in addition to the U.S., include the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the World Bank and multi-national pharmaceutical corporations. She warned that the WHO was in charge of orchestrating a global effort to develop and promote more vaccines for mandatory use in every country. She said:

One of the most politically powerful public-private partnerships in the world today is the lucrative one that has been forged by the pharmaceutical industry with government, mainstream media and wealthy philanthropic foundations with political agendas.¹⁴

So perhaps it’s not such a bad idea to take a step back right now from this politicized international organization so closely aligned with the pharmaceutical industry and institutions determined to vaccinate the world.

If you would like to receive an e-mail notice of the most recent articles published in The Vaccine Reaction each week, click here.