Withdrawing the United States From the World Health Organization

Overview

Executive Order 14155, titled "Withdrawing the United States from the World Health Organization," represents a pivotal shift in American international health policy. Issued by President Donald Trump in January 2025, the order outlines a procedural withdrawal from the WHO, a move justified by arguments concerning the organization's handling of the COVID-19 pandemic and its alleged susceptibility to the influence of certain member states, notably China. The order criticizes what it perceives as unequal financial contributions among member states, with a particular focus on the disparity between U.S. and Chinese contributions relative to their populations.

The order revokes the U.S.'s previously rescinded withdrawal notice to the WHO made in 2020, which had been retracted by President Biden. By annulling Executive Order 13987, which aimed to coordinate a unified federal response to pandemics, the new directive transitions away from multilateral approaches to global health. It mandates an immediate pause on U.S. funding to the WHO and calls for reassigning American personnel from the organization. The executive order indicates a strategic shift towards identifying alternative international and domestic partners to perform roles previously fulfilled through WHO collaborations.

This directive further delineates responsibilities for various U.S. departments to execute the withdrawal, assigning the task of formal notification to the Secretary of State. The Secretary is also instructed to suspend negotiations on the WHO's Pandemic Agreement, signifying a cessation of U.S. participation in developing international health regulations. The order suggests a move towards unilateral action in global health matters, signaling a significant change in the U.S.'s historical role as a leader in this field.

Legal and Policy Implications

The decision to withdraw from the WHO through an executive order brings forth important constitutional implications, particularly concerning the separation of powers. Typically, international agreements, including withdrawals, necessitate involvement from both the executive and legislative branches. The order's reliance on executive authority to unilaterally exit an international organization invites potential debates about the extent and limits of presidential power in foreign policy and international engagement.

On a statutory level, the order demands immediate shifts in budget allocations previously earmarked for WHO contributions, leading to a restructuring of fiscal priorities. This reallocation requires interagency coordination and could lead to congressional scrutiny. Moreover, the revocation of Executive Order 13987 suggests a need to reformulate domestic pandemic response strategies, affecting pre-established interdepartmental cooperation essential for national biosecurity and public health prerogatives.

Policy implications of withdrawing from the WHO include a reduced U.S. presence in shaping international health standards and regulations. The cessation of U.S. involvement in the WHO's deliberations could diminish American influence and limit its ability to steer global health policy. This disengagement poses the risk of isolating U.S. agencies from collaborative frameworks that have historically proven vital in managing transnational health threats.

Who Benefits

Within the United States, some sectors may see potential gains from the withdrawal. Healthcare and pharmaceutical companies might initially perceive a financial benefit as funds formerly directed to the WHO become available for domestic industry investment and development. This redirection of resources could stimulate innovation and infrastructure enhancements within the American health ecosystem.

Non-profit health organizations and research bodies stand to gain from the emphasis on finding alternative international partners to replace the WHO's functions. This might provide these entities with increased funding and roles in shaping domestic health policy, promoting a more nationally focused health research agenda that bypasses broader international mandates.

Politically, the withdrawal could appease constituencies advocating for reduced international oversight and stronger national sovereignty regarding health policy and spending. Such groups may view the order as a step towards asserting U.S. independence from multilateral organizations perceived as inefficient or overly politicized, aligning it with nationalist priorities.

Who Suffers

The departure from the WHO is likely to negatively affect American public health experts and researchers who depend on global networks for data and resource sharing. By diminishing access to international scientific cooperation, the order could hinder efforts in surveillance, response, and management of health threats, ultimately impacting the American population's health security.

Economically disadvantaged communities in the United States may be disproportionately affected by the policy shift. These populations often rely on the trickle-down benefits of international health initiatives and collaborations that address disease prevention and health promotion. The absence of WHO cooperation may stall the adoption of successful global health strategies, increasing vulnerabilities among these groups.

Internationally, nations reliant on U.S. leadership in the WHO might struggle to sustain their global health agendas in the absence of American participation. This could lead to power imbalances within the organization, potentially undermining efforts to create equitable and inclusive health policies, adversely affecting countries dependent on stable international health governance.

Historical Context

Executive Order 14155 reflects a broader trend towards unilateralism and skepticism of multilateral institutions under President Trump's administration. It echoes actions from his first term, emphasizing national control over engagements with international bodies portrayed as insufficiently transparent or accountable to American interests. This approach marks a continuation rather than a departure from previous policy tendencies.

The initial notice of withdrawal from the WHO in 2020 stands as a critical event in U.S. diplomatic history, driven by domestic pressures and the challenges posed by COVID-19. President Biden's subsequent re-engagement with the WHO attempted to reestablish the U.S. role in global health diplomacy. Executive Order 14155 reverses that stance, profoundy impacting the U.S.'s international health policy direction.

Strategically, this withdrawal aligns with broader reevaluations of U.S. commitments to international institutions and agreements across various sectors, including trade and environmental policies. This strategic reorientation reflects a desire to recalibrate international partnerships while prioritizing national discretion, significantly influencing America's geopolitical posture in the modern era.

Potential Controversies or Challenges

The executive order's enactment is likely to spark legal challenges due to its significant implications and deviations from traditional approaches to international agreements. It raises questions about the scope of executive authority when decisions with far-reaching global impacts, typically subjected to legislative approval, are made unilaterally. This could prompt judicial scrutiny over the checks and balances inherent in U.S. governance.

Congressional resistance is anticipated, particularly among lawmakers committed to sustaining U.S. engagement in international health leadership. Legislative bodies might initiate investigations or legal proceedings aiming to scrutinize or counteract the withdrawal, seeking to preserve bipartisan efforts in global health governance crucial for national and international security interests.

The diplomatic ramifications of the executive order could strain relationships with allied countries, who regard U.S. involvement in the WHO as vital for collective health security initiatives. This may necessitate adept diplomatic efforts to mitigate the perception of isolationism and to maintain robust bilateral relationships, countering potential criticisms of regression in multilateral partnerships.