Reacción a "Trump announces US withdrawal from World Health Organisation"

The US decision to leave the World Health Organisation (WHO) is bad news for global health governance as we know it. The US was one of the main drivers behind the creation of the UN system after World War II (in fact, the WHO's constitution was signed in the country) and has historically been its main funder.

The impact of this move should not be analysed solely in terms of the WHO's budget, although it puts the organisation - already limited in its funding to fulfil the broad mandate countries have given it - in an even more precarious position. It also raises serious implications for the global health system as a whole. It would not be unusual to see a drastic reduction in funding for other US organisations active in global health, such as PEPFAR (President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief) or the President's Malaria Program, as well as other institutions that rely on US funds, such as the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. It remains to be seen how the new administration's policies and discourse will influence the funding of US organisations that support the work of civil society and grassroots groups around the world.

At the same time, the WHO remains the essential forum for seeking collective solutions to growing global health problems. The departure of the US will prevent it from exerting its influence in a normative international forum, but it also opens the door for the remaining 193 states to take a more proactive and autonomous role in setting priorities. After decades of US dominance in terms of funding and agenda-setting, perhaps this opens an opportunity for countries in the Global South to promote a more equity and justice-based agenda in health.