Trump takes aim at WHO: What it means for global health and China’s influence

President Donald Trump signs an executive order withdrawing the U.S. from the World Health Organization in the Oval Office of the White House, Monday, Jan. 20, 2025, in Washington. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)

Alan Cafruny. Photo: Nancy L. Ford

To explore the reasoning behind this controversial decision and its potential consequences, News.Az sought insights from Alan Cafruny, the Henry Platt Bristol Professor of International Affairs at Hamilton College.

“Trump’s decision to withdraw from the WHO fits into a broader pattern of executive orders issued immediately following his inauguration,” Cafruny explained. “These include measures such as declaring a national emergency on the Mexican border, withdrawing from the Paris Climate Agreement, and instituting controversial policies on gender recognition. Among the most consequential was the decree to withdraw from the WHO within 12 months, halting U.S. financial contributions to the organization and suspending all foreign development aid for three months.”

The move, while dramatic, was not entirely unexpected.

“In 2020, Trump heavily criticized the WHO for its handling of the coronavirus pandemic, accusing it of downplaying the severity of the virus, delaying travel restrictions, and failing to hold China accountable for its lack of transparency,” Cafruny noted. “At that time, he initiated the U.S.’s withdrawal from the WHO, a decision that was later reversed by the Biden administration.”

Trump’s reassertion of this policy, Cafruny argued, signals a new chapter in his administration’s approach to global health governance. While the move may resonate with his MAGA base, it carries significant risks for global public health.

“The WHO plays an essential role in combating infectious diseases and preventing their spread across borders. It serves as a vital source of information for governments and the global scientific community while supporting initiatives such as the eradication of polio,” Cafruny said.

The U.S. has historically contributed $65 million annually to the WHO’s polio eradication efforts. A withdrawal could jeopardize these initiatives, especially given Trump’s appointment of Robert Kennedy Jr., a vocal critic of vaccines, as Secretary of Health and Human Services.

Moreover, Cafruny warned, the decision could bolster China’s influence in global health governance. With ongoing negotiations for a Pandemic Agreement and the selection of a new WHO Director-General in 2027, China’s growing role could further diminish U.S. sway in shaping international health initiatives.

Trump has consistently argued that the U.S. shoulders “unfairly onerous payments” to the WHO. While these contributions align with the nation’s level of prosperity, Cafruny emphasized the interconnected nature of global and national public health.

“As the COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated, no country is immune to the ripple effects of global health challenges. A reduction in U.S. participation in the WHO could have profound and far-reaching consequences.”

Although the withdrawal is not immediate—U.S. law requires a one-year notice—the decision’s future remains uncertain. “Negotiations or concessions could still prevent a complete U.S. exit from the WHO,” Cafruny explained. “Meanwhile, the global health community will be closely watching how this potential departure impacts both national and international efforts to address future health crises.”

As Trump’s administration presses forward with its policy agenda, the stakes for global health and the U.S.’s role in international cooperation remain high.

News.Az