The United States has always been a supportive member of W.H.O., being amongst the first countries to join after its creation in 1948 and historically being the largest funder, but is now the first and only country in the world who has withdrawn from W.H.O.
The United States government claims their reasoning behind withdrawal of W.H.O. is due to poor management during the COVID-19 outbreak and other international health crises’. The United States has been expected to pay disportional amounts to W.H.O. compared to other countries’ populations, with other countries like China who have a much larger population yet are expected to contribute less in payment than the United States. President Donald Trump had already attempted to withdraw from W.H.O. previously during his first presidential term, though his plans were cut back by President Joe Biden who reversed his efforts the first day he was in office.
The United States government has not paid their expected annual dues from 2024 to 2025, leaving behind an estimated unpaid total of $133 million, and has indicated it will not pay those dues before their official withdrawal. The United States had fallen short on payments on previous payments before, but after completing its withdrawal, no longer holds any obligation towards fund contributions.
“I think eventually the United States does have to pay off these debts, but debt is also progress,” junior Samuel Goldman said.
By withdrawing from W.H.O., the United States will no longer have access to the Global Influenza Surveillance and Response System, a huge setback in getting a head start on preparing and handling outbreaks as the United States will not be receiving international updates and monitoring of global cases and data, disrupting efforts to develop annual flu vaccines that match what viral samples require. In the past, the United States’ involvement with W.H.O. has given them a major advantage in dealing with outbreaks of infectious diseases such as Ebola, limiting travel and taking screening measures promptly after W.H.O.’s notification of the 2014 Ebola outbreak in West Africa.
“If another pandemic hits, I would probably take as many precautions as I could myself,” junior Abby Bernstein said.
The withdrawal created a significant funding gap, giving other countries an opportunity to fill the missing budget and potentially influence universal health priorities and guidelines like the United States has done in the past. The methods of treatment could potentially shift from Western-centric models to other approaches recognized in remaining nations members of W.H.O. However, the cut of United States funding in W.H.O. can also relieve them of political pressure and grow into a more independent organization.
“The only reason America should give funding for healthcare is if it’s for a global scale pandemic,” sophomore Megan McGirr said.
Essential health programs targeting A.I.D.S., malaria, tuberculosis and child health are at a critical stage due to the withdrawal of between 12 percent 1o 15 percent of their total funding formerly contributed by the United States. Low and middle income countries rely heavily on the programs offered by W.H.O., thus when the United States’ relationship with W.H.O. destabilizes and their funding expectations are not met, those countries suffer the most, with life-saving benefits becoming limited, and worldwide Covid-19 vaccine accessibility initiatives falling short of universal health objectives. African countries greatly depend upon external funding for healthcare services, especially W.H.O. Prices for certain H.I.V. healthcare preventatives have skyrocketed partially due to the change in funding. While it is not the responsibility of the United States to support the health finances of other countries, it is vital to understand their influence on the stability and development of global health equality and the significance of their presence on a worldwide scale.
