Catherine Maltman | United States Fellow
Image sourced from Guilhem Vellut via Wikimedia Commons.
The United States’ (US) withdrawal from the World Health Organization (WHO) will have far-reaching consequences, especially in a potential future pandemic. Not only could the world be ill-prepared to contend with the next major virus, but the US’ withdrawal underscores more significant issues around the role of international agreements and the changing nature of health-related information sharing. Whether the WHO's detractors see it or not, the US – and global cooperation – could suffer considerably for this decision.
The Global Impact of US Withdrawal from the WHO
President Trump's withdrawal from the WHO is not just a show of isolationism or international dominance. This is a shift that could disrupt global health coordination, oversight of diseases, and long-term preparedness. In 2022-23, the US provided USD$1.284 billion to the WHO, more than any other state. This funding has enabled the WHO to undertake significant elements of its work, including HIV programs, immunisation drives, and combating tuberculosis. In the post-WWII era, countries were more likely to lean into global coordination as a means to support global peace and prevent fragmentation and conflict. We are now living in an era where world leaders – especially Trump – are increasingly changing the rules of global cooperation. He sees the WHO as having mishandled the COVID response, having failed to hold China to account, and relying too heavily on a small few countries to prop up funding and developing countries' public health.
Now, pioneered by the US, governments are increasingly sceptical of this cooperation and have been more vocal about the shortcomings of international institutions. Following the US’ lead, Argentina has also announced its withdrawal, while Hungary's Prime Minister and a member of Russia's parliament have both floated the idea of their countries leaving. This sentiment is not new, with a steady growth in grassroots and governmental campaigns against the WHO and its decisions, especially in a post-COVID era. Hungary's justification stemmed from scepticism over an organisation without “the most powerful country”, while Argentina has stated they “will not allow an international organisation to intervene in [its] sovereignty.” This is not a surprising phenomenon – given Trump's agenda, increasing nationalism globally, and scrutiny of international cooperation, we are more likely to see countries question their foreign aid packages and monetary contributions to international organisations.
The US' commitment to global health governance is now uncertain, as is the stability of disease-related funding, and the framework for the WHO as a trusted international institution. Without the financial and logistical support provided by the US and other states, a weakened WHO may likely struggle to coordinate responses to future pandemics, putting global security at risk.
Weakened Global Health Coordination
If this trend of disengagement continues, the world could face a future where disease outbreaks are met with fragmented, uncoordinated responses — leading to unnecessary loss of life, economic instability, and prolonged global crises. The US' Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) works closely with the WHO to distribute information on diseases, with CDC staff stationed in over 60 countries. This collaboration provides real-time disease control and reporting, which has already seen a demise in addressing the spread of bird flu, despite a grace period before the US formally leaves. Without this partnership, both the CDC and WHO lose a critical line of communication, significantly harming either organisation's ability to curb outbreaks before they expand.
The WHO works not only with the US government but also with the pharmaceutical industry, universities, and the non-profit sector across the US, home to some of the largest medical research and manufacturing hubs. This work helps to create an equitable distribution of vaccinations and medications and bolsters the WHO's research capabilities. This political uncertainty, therefore, threatens the funding and speed of domestic and global health initiatives and the US' position to influence global health policy.
Scepticism, Coordination, and the Challenges of Future Pandemics
With growing scepticism concerning vaccines and the pharmaceutical industry, alongside the political blame game spurred by COVID-19, it is becoming increasingly difficult to get countries to agree on standards and regulations for disease and disaster management. Not only is a large part of the world still trying to play a game of vaccination catch-up, especially those with large rural or dense populations, but regional instability continually impacts efforts to eradicate disease. Regardless of criticisms over its effectiveness now, this decision sends the WHO in the wrong direction in the long-term. In the future, with a larger-scale pandemic or epidemic, and without the support of the WHO, the US' and global response will be very different.
If COVID-19 taught us anything, it is that countries cannot fight pandemics alone. Much like other global disasters and threats, they require a significant amount of coordination and information sharing to protect billions of lives and major industries from being impacted. With our current level of globalisation, disease outbreaks are more likely to spread through live export or air travel, making diseases relatively indiscriminate between developed and developing countries. That is, unless countries take steps – or receive funding – to 'disease-proof' themselves through public awareness, sanitation, and immunisation. The Trump Administration's decision to withdraw the US from the WHO has far-reaching consequences for the global health effort and the future of disease control in the US. More threatening, many will hope this is not a sign of the times – the gradual unravelling of international institutions that have long served as the backbone of global cooperation.
Catherine Maltman is the United States Fellow for Young Australians in International Affairs. She holds a Bachelor of Arts, a Master of International Relations, and a Master of International Law from the University of Western Australia. Passionate about U.S. politics and international affairs, Catherine is eager to contribute to discussions about the United States' evolving role on the global stage under the incoming administration, particularly its implications for security and trade.
Comentarios