Global Health at a Crossroads: Why the U.S. Withdrawal from WHO Matters, by Dr. Musa Abdullahi Sufi

The decision by the United States to notify its withdrawal from the World Health Organization (WHO) represents a defining moment in global health governance. It is not merely a diplomatic development; it is a turning point with far-reaching implications for international cooperation, collective preparedness, and the health security of nations worldwide.

As a founding member of WHO, the United States has historically shaped some of the greatest public health achievements of the modern era. From the eradication of smallpox to sustained progress against polio, HIV, Ebola, tuberculosis, malaria, and neglected tropical diseases, U.S. engagement has been central. Its scientific expertise, financial contributions, and global influence have strengthened the world’s capacity to prevent, detect, and respond to health threats that know no borders.

It is therefore unsurprising that WHO has formally expressed regret over the U.S. withdrawal notice, describing the decision as one that makes both the United States and the global community less safe. The issue is slated for discussion at the WHO Executive Board meeting beginning 2 February 2026 and later at the World Health Assembly in May, underscoring the gravity of the moment.

Re-examining the COVID-19 Accusations

At the heart of Washington’s justification for withdrawal are allegations that WHO mishandled the COVID-19 pandemic and failed to maintain independence. WHO, however, has firmly rejected these claims, acknowledging that no institution or government navigated the pandemic perfectly, but insisting that its actions were timely, transparent, and guided by evolving scientific evidence.

The timeline is instructive. On 31 December 2019, WHO was alerted to cases of pneumonia of unknown cause in Wuhan. Emergency systems were activated immediately, and information was requested from Chinese authorities. By 11 January 2020 — when the first death was reported — WHO had already alerted the world, convened international experts, and issued technical guidance.

When the WHO Director-General declared COVID-19 a Public Health Emergency of International Concern on 30 January 2020 — the highest alert under international health law — fewer than 100 cases had been recorded outside China and no deaths reported beyond its borders. WHO repeatedly warned governments that “the window of opportunity is closing,” describing the virus as “public enemy number one.”

A frequently misunderstood aspect of WHO’s guidance also deserves clarification: the organization recommended measures such as masks, vaccines, and physical distancing but did not impose mandates or lockdowns. Those decisions were made by sovereign governments, consistent with WHO’s advisory, not coercive, mandate.

Reform and Readiness

Independent reviews of the global COVID-19 response prompted WHO to undertake reforms aimed at strengthening surveillance, emergency preparedness, and rapid response mechanisms. These systems now operate continuously, enhancing global health security — including for countries that have been critical of the organization.

WHO also rejects assertions that it is politically driven or biased against any nation. As a specialized United Nations agency governed by 194 Member States, its legitimacy rests on impartiality, respect for sovereignty, and service to all countries without fear or favour.

The Bigger Concern: A Fragile Health Architecture

The timing of the U.S. withdrawal is particularly troubling. The world is attempting to learn from the COVID-19 crisis and prevent future catastrophes. WHO Member States have taken historic steps, including the adoption of the WHO Pandemic Agreement — once ratified, a landmark legal instrument to strengthen preparedness and ensure equitable access to vaccines, diagnostics, and therapeutics.

Negotiations on the Pathogen Access and Benefit Sharing (PABS) system aim to ensure rapid pathogen sharing and fairness in distributing benefits — essential principles in preventing future pandemics from spiralling into global disasters.

Health Security Is Indivisible

Pathogens do not respect borders, visas, or political divisions. A weakened WHO does not advantage any country; it leaves all more vulnerable. Climate change, emerging infectious diseases, antimicrobial resistance, and widening health inequalities demand stronger cooperation, not fragmentation.

WHO has expressed hope that the United States will eventually return to active participation in the institution it helped build. Until then, the organization reaffirms its constitutional mandate: to pursue the highest attainable standard of health as a fundamental human right for every person, everywhere.

The world now faces a stark choice. Will nations retreat into isolation, or rise together to protect the shared future of humanity? In an interconnected world, global solidarity in health is not optional — it is essential.

Dr. Musa Abdullahi Sufi writes on global health and international policy.