What the US exit from the WHO means for global health and family well-being

In a move that has had a profound impact across the globe, the United States has officially withdrawn from the World Health Organization (WHO), a decision with significant implications for public health, families, and future generations.

On January 20, 2025, President Trump signed Executive Order 14155, formally initiating this withdrawal as a direct response to what the administration characterised as the WHO's failures in addressing the Covid-19 pandemic and other health crises.

​The heart of this story is not just political manoeuvring, but the real and significant impact the US withdrawal from the WHO will have on public health and safety for communities everywhere.

​With the US no longer part of the WHO, the country's commitment to leading global health initiatives is now in question. This decision, driven by concerns about the organisation's management, creates uncertainty both for the nation's safety and for the stability of worldwide health systems.

Since its founding in 1948, the United States has been a powerful force within the WHO, contributing to some of its most iconic achievements. Think about the eradication of smallpox, a disease that no longer claims lives thanks to collective global action.

Or the rapid response to outbreaks like Ebola, where the WHO has played a pivotal role in containing crises before they spiral out of control.

​The United Nations pushed back against US claims of mismanagement at the WHO. “The WHO has always sought to engage with the United States in good faith," the UN said, stressing that the agency is fair and serves all member countries equally, without outside political influence.

"The UN also noted that during the Covid-19 pandemic, the WHO acted quickly, shared information, and gave advice based on the best evidence available.

“A significant portion of the statement is dedicated to defending the WHO against US accusations of 'failures' during the Covid-19 pandemic: according to the administration, the WHO obstructed the 'timely and accurate sharing of critical information' and 'concealed those failures'.”

The agency counters this by noting that, throughout the pandemic, it acted quickly, shared all information it had rapidly and transparently with the world, and advised Member States on the basis of the best available evidence, the UN wrote.

“WHO recommended the use of masks, vaccines, and physical distancing, but at no stage recommended mask mandates, vaccine mandates or lockdowns.”​

​The ripple effects on families and communities

At its core, this decision isn’t just about policy; it’s about people. It’s about the parents anxiously googling symptoms at 2am, the doctors fighting to prevent the next pandemic, and the children born into a world where global health collaboration has been a cornerstone of progress.

​The global efforts in vaccines, disease surveillance, and outbreak response management rely heavily on this funding. South Africa, in particular, will feel the impact, as the withdrawal of these funds will significantly jeopardise its HIV and TB management programs.

This is expected to cause a notable decline in HIV testing and care within a country already battling one of the world's highest infection rates.

Global health isn’t a distant concept; it’s woven into our everyday lives. The WHO’s work touches on everything from vaccine distribution to maternal health and infant mortality. For parents, this means access to life-saving immunisations, safer childbirth practices, and the prevention of diseases like measles and polio that once devastated communities.

The US withdrawal, however, jeopardises these efforts. As the WHO’s largest financial contributor, providing roughly 18% of its funding, the U.S. departure has forced the organisation to slash budgets and cut critical programs.

For mothers grappling with postpartum depression or families mourning the loss of a child to sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), the WHO’s guidance and resources have been a lifeline. These are not abstract issues; they’re deeply human, affecting the well-being of families worldwide.

Global health threats don’t respect borders, whether it’s a virus spreading across continents or antimicrobial resistance rendering antibiotics useless. The WHO provides a platform for countries to share data, coordinate responses, and ensure that when one nation falters, others can step in.

By stepping away, the US risks isolating itself from these critical networks. The government has stated its intention to work directly with other countries on public health priorities, but experts warn that this fragmented approach could weaken international systems designed to detect and respond to health threats.

Kelly Henning, public health program lead at Bloomberg Philanthropies, put it bluntly: “The US withdrawal from WHO could weaken the systems and collaborations the world relies on to detect, prevent, and respond to health threats.”

The WHO has been instrumental in reducing maternal mortality, improving nutrition, and combating the health disparities that leave vulnerable populations behind. Without the US at the table, these efforts face an uncertain future.