The new US president, Donald Trump, announced on his first day that the country will leave the World Health Organisation (WHO) within the next twelve months. The reasons behind the decision, according to him, are the ‘mismanagement of the covid-19 pandemic and other global health crises’, as well as ‘disproportionate payments compared to other countries’ dues’.

Donald Trump firma sus primeras órdenes ejecutivas en el Despacho Oval, en la Casa Blanca. EFE/EPA/JIM LO SCALZO / POOL.
Óscar Zurriaga - Trump OMS EN
Óscar Zurriaga
Epidemiologist, researcher at the Department of Preventive Medicine, Public Health, Food Sciences, Toxicology and Legal Medicine, University of Valencia and president of the Spanish Society of Epidemiology.
According to WHO's own information, the US is the main donor in the period 2022-2023. The exit of the US from the WHO will mean losing an amount of 1.284 billion dollars for that biennium and will put the WHO at a significant financial risk, a risk of being able to meet its objectives and going backwards in everything that is already being done. But, apart from that, the most important risk is the loss of influence of the WHO itself, which, at times, is no longer what it should be; and the constant questioning of multilateral issues in the field of health. I think this is very bad news and will affect global health, especially for the countries that are in the worst situation, which will see important programmes cut back. If we add to this the fact that the appointed US Secretary of Health is not in favour of key programmes such as vaccinations, we could have a worsening of global health.
Quique Bassat - Trump OMS EN
Quique Bassat
Paediatrician, epidemiologist and managing director at the Barcelona Institute for Global Health (ISGlobal)
Although expected, the immediate departure of the US from the WHO is heartbreaking news, adding to the conservative and nationalist turn Trump will take in his second term, and will undoubtedly de-prioritise global health from his government's agenda. From the United States has come an icy winter in everything to do with the fight against the major diseases that affect the most vulnerable populations and global health inequities.
Amós - Trump OMS EN
Amós García Rojas
Former head of the Epidemiology and Prevention Service of the General Directorate of Public Health of the Canary Islands Health Service, former president of the Spanish Vaccination Association (AEV) and until his retirement in 2024 a member of the WHO Standing Group for Europe
Evidently, the departure of the US from the WHO is a clear sign of what many of us are so concerned about: a new world order. The WHO arose out of the need to carry out global analyses of the distribution of diseases, since many health problems have a global impact and we need global strategies to deal with them. To think that in the face of certain diseases we can put up a wall, as between the USA and Mexico, is utter nonsense. But the WHO also has an unquestionable value in terms of defending the health interests of developing countries. When the WHO speaks, it does not speak with the USA, Spain or France in mind, but with all the countries of the world in mind, and many countries unfortunately live in a context of poverty where the WHO is essential to establish global strategies that allow them to avoid suffering excessively harmful consequences in relation to health problems.
Jacob Lorenzo Morales - Trump OMS EN
Jacob Lorenzo-Morales
Professor of Parasitology, Director of the University Institute of Tropical Diseases and Public Health of the Canary Islands of the University of La Laguna and CIBERINFEC researcher
The departure of the US from the WHO will not only wreak havoc on the health of the US population, but of the world's population. The US is one of the main funders of the WHO (public and private funds). Not only would this be a serious strategic mistake, as they would lose the influence they have over the WHO, but it would also jeopardise the health of the population. Stopping vaccination campaigns, for example, or avoiding the control and surveillance of disease-transmitting vectors [would be some of these problems].
It is sad that, once again, health professionals are being sidelined and these decisions are being made by people who are not experts in the field. The US will enter a dark zone where, despite whoever it may be, they will realise that they can do many things on their own, but pathogen control and control is a global health issue and this country will be totally unprotected if they leave the WHO. Sad news and a very bad decision.
África - Trump (EN)
África González-Fernández
Researcher at CINBIO, Professor of Immunology at the University of Vigo, member of the RAFG and author of the informative book Inmuno Power: know and strengthen your defences (2021)
This is a very unfortunate measure, with many implications at various levels and which will affect us all.
On the one hand, it devalues the prestige of the World Health Organization at a global level, dragging other countries to do the same.
On the other hand, it will reduce the economic funds of this organization, which will reduce the important activities it carries out, especially in countries that need it most. Many diseases that are now under control (prevention, monitoring, therapies) will surely return with even greater force.
This decision therefore puts at risk the health and lives of many people, especially children, and especially in vulnerable areas where WHO's role is critical.
Already in the pandemic, Bloomberg Business Week magazine indicated whether we were ready for a next pandemic, and indicated a five-step plan:
1. Emerging Pathogen Control.
2. Increased power and control of WHO, being independent.
3. Tracking pathogens and variants.
4. Vaccines: with more companies, resolving the issue of patents.
5. Measures in logistics, coordination and planning.
Therefore, what should be done is to give much more weight to the WHO, who are the most expert in relation to health problems, infections, pandemics, vaccination, climate change, and who do a commendable job in many countries of the world.
If we want to achieve the One Health model, it will only be possible through an international organization concerned about health such as the WHO.
María - Trump (EN)
María Iglesias-Caballero
Virologist at the Reference Laboratory for Influenza and Respiratory Viruses of the National Microbiology Centre - Carlos III Health Institute
As a citizen, I am very concerned about the reactionary wave that is affecting world politics and that the United States is taking to the maximum expression. I was already concerned about the appointment of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as Secretary of Health, a vaccine denier and firm believer in many conspiracies. I was also [concerned] about the willingness of this administration to cut policies in public spending, which also leads to cuts in research and public health.
Therefore, even before the departure of the WHO, everything was very worrying and this is one more step in a country where the circulation of the H5N1 avian flu virus is now totally out of control, already during the Biden Administration: in livestock and in humans, with one death. As a virologist, I do not know how this is going to escalate, I do not know how the rest of the countries of the world are going to suffer and I do not know how it may affect the research and production of vaccines and other drugs against avian flu.
On the other hand, international organizations are not what they used to be: the WHO, during the genocide carried out by Israel in Palestine, asked several times to respect hospitals and the human right to health care during a war, but how many doctors have died and how many hospitals have been destroyed in spite of the WHO's and a lot of international organizations' call not to do so.
It is worrying and sad, but I think it is one more drop in a lot of situations that we as a society are going to have to face and that will be very hard for many groups and at a human level. On a professional level it is going to have a very strong impact on health and research in general. With these issues, the United States may lose the momentum it has always had in the scientific system, although what matters most to me is the impact it is going to have on many US citizens, migrant workers and on public health. We will see how the avian flu develops and where we will end up with this Secretary of Health who does not believe in vaccines.
Peiró - Trump (EN)
Salvador Peiró
Epidemiologist, researcher in the Health Services and Pharmacoepidemiology Research Area of the Foundation for the Promotion of Health and Biomedical Research of the Valencian Community (FISABIO) and Director of Gaceta Sanitaria, the scientific journal of the Spanish Society of Public Health and Health Administration (SESPAS)
The US withdrawal from WHO will have serious implications for global health and the planet. The US is one of the largest funders and historic leaders of the WHO and its absence will leave a gap in funding for critical programs such as mass vaccination, the fight against malaria, HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis, and response to health emergencies.
This will particularly affect developing countries, exacerbate global health inequalities and jeopardize decades of progress, but will also increase migration and certain health problems in developed countries.
U.S. withdrawal will also weaken the international cooperation needed to address global challenges such as pandemics and health crises, reducing the ability to react early to outbreaks, hindering the exchange of critical information and complicating the containment of future global threats. It also undermines trust in global institutions and will erode the effectiveness of international health governance.
Overall, in addition to jeopardizing global public health and the UN Sustainable Development Goals, it will reduce the global response capacity to future pandemics and health crises, affecting not only the most vulnerable countries, but all of humanity, including the United States itself.
Belén Tarrafeta - Trump OMS EN
Belén Tarrafeta
Researcher in pharmaceutical policy at the Institute of Tropical Medicine, Antwerp (Belgium)
The news itself comes as no surprise. Many analysts had already raised alarm bells about the short-term consequences. The US exit from the WHO will exacerbate funding shortfalls, given that the organisation already faces a considerable shortfall in meeting its responsibilities. It is important to understand that the WHO's responsibilities increase as new resolutions are adopted, many of which are passed without the necessary funding, and current operations must be maintained. This means that the global health gap will be even wider.
Moreover, the decision will deprive the WHO of US technical expertise and capacity in a number of scientific areas, at least through current channels. But the US will lose the opportunity to directly influence strategic and technical decision-making, including direct access to data, or influence policy decisions. This opt-out situation could have undesirable consequences for the US, although its immediate impact may not be obvious.
The big unknown is the response of other member states and their interest in maintaining a WHO that strengthens their leadership, or a WHO with diminishing capacity. And this opens up a range of possibilities and uncertainties, as many as there are geopolitical hotspots, because there is no single alternative vision to a US exit. At the moment there is much speculation, but few official statements about the intentions of other member states.
Finally, it is crucial to consider what Trump's strategy is regarding global health outside the WHO. It is necessary to ask whether this action is part of a broader withdrawal from other programmes, such as PEPFAR, GAVI, the Global Fund and other UN agencies, and whether his exit from the WHO marks the beginning of a new alternative strategy through other mechanisms, focused on other values, such as trade and security.
Adrián Alonso - Trump OMS EN
Adrián Alonso
Research and Advocacy Manager in Salud por Derecho
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.