NEW YORK — The U.S. has officially withdrawn from the World Health Organization (WHO), finalizing the departure that President Donald Trump initiated a year ago. However, this exit is fraught with complications, particularly due to an outstanding debt of approximately $280 million owed to the organization.
Trump administration officials concede that the withdrawal remains incomplete in addressing certain critical issues, including the loss of access to vital data from other countries that provide early warnings of potential pandemics. Public health experts, such as Lawrence Gostin from Georgetown University, label this decision as one of the most detrimental in recent history, expressing concerns that it will severely affect the global health response and hinder the U.S. effort in developing necessary medical solutions.
The WHO, functioning under the United Nations, is crucial for coordinating responses to global health threats, supporting vaccine distribution, and providing technical assistance to less developed nations. The United States has historically been one of its major contributors and experts fear that the withdrawal could cripple efforts aimed at tackling diseases such as polio and Ebola.
Dr. Ronald Nahass, president of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, criticized the U.S. exit as scientifically reckless, arguing it could disrupt critical health initiatives and limit the effective monitoring of viral threats. As of now, the U.S. ceased its participation in numerous WHO governance bodies, which could impact important decisions regarding health measures, including updates to influenza vaccines.
Trump's administration argues that existing public health relationships with various countries might compensate for the loss of WHO cooperation, yet officials did not specify how these bilateral arrangements are managed.
Legally, the United States has obligations to settle its dues before withdrawing from the WHO, a point disputed by the current administration which denies any such requirement. As the nation moves forward, experts express skepticism about the ability to establish effective global health collaborations without the framework of the WHO.
Trump administration officials concede that the withdrawal remains incomplete in addressing certain critical issues, including the loss of access to vital data from other countries that provide early warnings of potential pandemics. Public health experts, such as Lawrence Gostin from Georgetown University, label this decision as one of the most detrimental in recent history, expressing concerns that it will severely affect the global health response and hinder the U.S. effort in developing necessary medical solutions.
The WHO, functioning under the United Nations, is crucial for coordinating responses to global health threats, supporting vaccine distribution, and providing technical assistance to less developed nations. The United States has historically been one of its major contributors and experts fear that the withdrawal could cripple efforts aimed at tackling diseases such as polio and Ebola.
Dr. Ronald Nahass, president of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, criticized the U.S. exit as scientifically reckless, arguing it could disrupt critical health initiatives and limit the effective monitoring of viral threats. As of now, the U.S. ceased its participation in numerous WHO governance bodies, which could impact important decisions regarding health measures, including updates to influenza vaccines.
Trump's administration argues that existing public health relationships with various countries might compensate for the loss of WHO cooperation, yet officials did not specify how these bilateral arrangements are managed.
Legally, the United States has obligations to settle its dues before withdrawing from the WHO, a point disputed by the current administration which denies any such requirement. As the nation moves forward, experts express skepticism about the ability to establish effective global health collaborations without the framework of the WHO.
