What has happened?
On 22 January 2026, the United States government formally completed its withdrawal from the World Health Organization (WHO), ending more than seven decades as one of the organization’s founding and largest member states. The move follows a year-long process initiated in January 2025, during which U.S. funding to WHO was halted and American staff were withdrawn from WHO programs.
The U.S. administration argues that the decision reflects deeper concerns about WHO’s performance during the COVID-19 pandemic and its governance. Public health experts, multilateral agencies and many governments, however, warn that the withdrawal could weaken coordinated responses to global health threats at a time when cross‑border cooperation remains critical.
Why did the U.S. withdraw?
In its announcement confirming the withdrawal, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the State Department cited several reasons. These include what the administration describes as WHO’s delayed declaration of a public health emergency and a pandemic during the early stages of COVID‑19, its praise of China’s initial response despite concerns about data transparency, and its handling of investigations into the origins of the virus.[1] The administration also argues that WHO did not implement sufficient reforms after the pandemic to address political influence and governance challenges, and therefore could not guarantee the independence and speed of its future responses.
Supporters of the decision say that, instead of working through WHO, the United States can focus on direct partnerships with other countries, regional organizations, non‑governmental groups and the private sector. They contend that this approach will give Washington more control over how its global health resources are used and allow it to prioritize biosecurity, emergency response and innovation that they say will “protect America first” while still assisting partners abroad.[1]
How are global health organizations responding?
WHO officials and many public health researchers express concern that the departure of one of the organization’s largest funders and technical partners comes at a sensitive moment for global health. In a statement responding to the notification of withdrawal, WHO said it “regrets the United States’ decision” and warned that the move “makes both the United States and the world less safe.” The organization highlighted the long record of U.S.-WHO collaboration, including contributions to smallpox eradication, polio control, HIV, tuberculosis and malaria programs, food safety and pandemic preparedness.[2]
Commentary in medical and public health journals has raised similar concerns. Writing in The Lancet, clinicians and global health experts argue that cutting formal ties with WHO and freezing support for large-scale international health programs could slow responses to outbreaks, disrupt surveillance networks and limit the ability of low- and middle‑income countries to access technical support. They also note that many U.S.-backed initiatives, such as HIV treatment programs and immunisation campaigns, rely on WHO’s coordination and normative guidance to function effectively across borders.[3]
What could this mean for global disease surveillance?
One of the most immediate questions raised by the withdrawal is how disease surveillance and information sharing will adapt. For decades, U.S. agencies such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have worked closely with WHO on the rapid detection and reporting of new outbreaks, from influenza and Ebola to more recent threats such as mpox. These collaborations include laboratory support, field epidemiology training and data sharing that help countries identify and respond to emerging health threats.
Public health experts interviewed by global health outlets warn that, without formal U.S. participation in WHO mechanisms, some of these information flows may become slower or more fragmented. They caution that delays in sharing laboratory results or outbreak data could reduce the lead time needed to adjust vaccines, treatments and public health measures, especially for fast‑moving respiratory viruses.[3][4]
At the same time, analysts note that scientific networks often maintain informal ties even when official government relationships change. Researchers expect that many U.S. and international laboratories will continue to collaborate on surveillance and vaccine strain selection, though the absence of a clear institutional framework may make long‑term planning and funding more uncertain.[4]
Different views on the long‑term impact
Reactions to the U.S. decision reflect broader debates about how global health governance should evolve after COVID‑19. Critics of the withdrawal, including WHO leadership and a number of global health academics, argue that shared challenges — from pandemic preparedness and antimicrobial resistance to climate‑related health risks — require more co‑ordination, not less. They stress that WHO remains the only body with a universal mandate from governments to set health norms, issue guidance and convene responses to transnational health emergencies.[2][4]
Supporters of the move, by contrast, say that the withdrawal underscores the need to rethink how international organizations are structured and held accountable. Some analysts argue that the decision could accelerate efforts to build new coalitions or financing mechanisms focused on specific health priorities, or to reform existing institutions. Others point out that the outcome may ultimately depend on how both the U.S. government and other countries choose to organise cooperation in practice over the coming years.
What happens next?
Legally and politically, some aspects of the withdrawal remain in flux. Because WHO’s constitution does not include a formal exit clause, member states on the organization’s Executive Board and at the World Health Assembly are still discussing how to interpret the U.S. notification, especially in light of outstanding U.S. financial contributions.[2][4] WHO officials have emphasised that they remain open to renewed engagement should U.S. policy change in the future.
In the meantime, U.S. agencies have signalled that they plan to expand bilateral health programs and partnerships outside the WHO framework. For communities on the front lines of infectious disease and for countries that depend on multilateral support, the practical effects of this shift may become clearer over time: in how quickly outbreaks are detected, how vaccines and treatments are shared, and how prepared the world is for the next global health emergency.
Summary
The U.S. withdrawal from the World Health Organization marks a significant change in global health governance. The administration argues that the decision reflects concerns about WHO’s performance and independence, and it plans to redirect efforts through bilateral and alternative partnerships.[1] WHO, public health experts and many observers, however, warn that the move risks weakening co‑ordinated responses to future health threats and could make both the United States and other countries more vulnerable in the face of new outbreaks.[2][3][4]
References
- U.S. Department of Health and Human Services & U.S. Department of State. “United States Completes WHO Withdrawal” (media release, Jan. 22, 2026).
- World Health Organization. “WHO statement on notification of withdrawal of the United States” (news release, Jan. 24, 2026).
- Su H. Wang et al., “US health policy changes threaten global public health cooperation,” Contagion Live summary of Lancet correspondence, 2026.
- Thomas Zimmer. “How the U.S. withdrawal from WHO could affect global health powers and disease threats,” The Conversation, 2026.
Members Discussion