The recent WHO US withdrawal update has sent ripples through the international health community, with the World Health Organization itself expressing profound regret over the United States’ formal decision. This significant move, initiated by President Donald Trump in January 2025, is seen by the WHO as making both the United States and the wider world less safe, marking a pivotal moment in global health governance. Despite acknowledging the substantial historical contributions of the US as a founding member, the WHO views this withdrawal as a concerning development for collective efforts against worldwide health threats.
The United States cited several reasons for its departure, primarily focusing on alleged “WHO failures during the COVID-19 pandemic.” These accusations included claims that the organization obstructed the timely and accurate sharing of critical information and concealed its operational shortcomings during the unprecedented global crisis. Such statements underscore a perceived disconnect between the US administration’s expectations and the WHO’s operational reality during a rapidly evolving public health emergency.
Why did the US withdraw from WHO? The US withdrew from the WHO primarily due to claims of the organization’s failures during the COVID-19 pandemic, including alleged obstruction of information sharing and a perceived politicized agenda hostile to American interests. These concerns were formally articulated as reasons for ending its membership.
The WHO, however, staunchly defends its actions throughout the pandemic, asserting that it responded swiftly and transparently. It maintains that all available information was shared rapidly with member states, and advice was consistently based on the best available scientific evidence at the time. The organization emphasized that while no single entity got everything perfectly right during such an unforeseen crisis, its response was both diligent and in line with its mandate.
Indeed, immediately following initial reports of “pneumonia of unknown cause” in Wuhan, China, on December 31, 2019, the WHO proactively sought more information and activated its emergency management system. By the time the first death was reported on January 11, 2020, the WHO had already alerted the world, convened global experts, and issued comprehensive guidance, demonstrating a rapid and robust initial response. This proactive stance highlights the organization’s commitment to its role in global health governance for beginners.
Furthermore, the WHO Director-General declared COVID-19 a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) on January 30, 2020, when there were fewer than 100 cases outside China. This highest level of alarm under international health law underscores the WHO’s early recognition of the pandemic’s severity, despite later critiques. The organization consistently urged countries to take immediate action, warning that the “window of opportunity is closing” and describing COVID-19 as “public enemy number one,” a critical message for global pandemic preparedness 2026.
The US also alleged that the WHO pursued a “politicised, bureaucratic agenda driven by nations hostile to American interests.” This claim directly challenges the organization’s impartiality and its foundational principles. The WHO has unequivocally denied these accusations, stating that as a specialized agency of the United Nations, governed by 194 Member States, it remains impartial and exists to serve all countries without fear or favour.
Looking ahead, the future of WHO 2026 guide will undoubtedly be shaped by its ongoing initiatives and member state engagement. A significant development is the adoption of the WHO Pandemic Agreement in 2025, a landmark instrument designed to fortify international law and enhance global safety against future pandemics. This agreement, once ratified, will represent a crucial step towards more coordinated and equitable responses to health crises.
Member states are also actively negotiating an annex to this agreement: the Pathogen Access and Benefit Sharing system. If adopted, this system aims to promote the rapid detection and sharing of pathogens with pandemic potential, alongside ensuring equitable and timely access to essential vaccines, therapeutics, and diagnostics. Understanding the international health regulations vs pandemic agreement is key to appreciating these new frameworks.
The WHO continues to appreciate the support and engagement of all its Member States, who are working within its framework to address the world’s most pressing health threats. The organization holds out hope that the United States will eventually return to active participation, reinforcing its core mission and constitutional mandate: ensuring the highest attainable standard of health as a fundamental right for all people, even as discussions around the WHO US withdrawal update continue.
