This week President Trump issued an executive order to withdraw the United States from the World Health Organization (WHO). Thurka Sangaramoorthy writes that the move will harm global health security and undermine WHO’s central role in research, international health standards and coordinating policy responses. She argues that decades of global health progress are at stake, and that now more than ever, during this period of global instability, we need international cooperation on global health threats and challenges. 

President Trump’s decision to withdraw from the World Health Organization (WHO), only hours after taking office for his second presidential term, reveals a dangerous misunderstanding of global health security. As an anthropologist and epidemiologist who has spent decades studying health inequities and disease outbreaks, I’ve witnessed how international health cooperation directly shapes survival outcomes for vulnerable populations. This withdrawal doesn’t just weaken America’s global health leadership—it threatens to unravel critical systems that protect us all.

How the WHO withdrawal will harm global health security

The decision to withdraw the US from the WHO in January 2026 ignores three fundamental realities about global health security. First, disease surveillance depends on interconnected networks. WHO’s extensive system linking laboratories and health centers worldwide has proven crucial for containing threats from anthrax to SARS to H1N1 influenza. My research during the COVID-19 pandemic revealed how rural communities disproportionately suffered when disconnected from broader health networks. WHO’s surveillance system helps prevent such isolation on a global scale. Withdrawing from this network creates dangerous blind spots in our early warning systems precisely when we need them most.

Second, effective outbreak response requires sustained international partnerships. Consider WHO’s recent coordination of the global monkeypox response, which successfully mobilized resources and ensured equitable access to diagnostics and vaccines based on public health needs rather than market forces alone. In previous outbreaks, from Ebola in West Africa to Zika in the Americas, WHO’s ability to coordinate cross-border responses proved essential for containing the spread. The organization’s procurement systems and technical guidance helped ensure that resources reached communities most in need, regardless of their economic status or political influence.

Third, the WHO serves as an irreplaceable buffer against the collapse of health systems in crisis settings. In conflict zones like Syria and Somalia, WHO’s surveillance systems have detected resurgent polio outbreaks stemming from war and displacement. In South Sudan and Iraq, similar systems caught hepatitis E and measles outbreaks before they could spiral out of control. WHO’s current presence in Gaza and Sudan often means the difference between containing an outbreak and watching it devastate already vulnerable populations. The organization’s ability to identify the health needs of affected populations and coordinate humanitarian response during conflicts and natural disasters saves countless lives in places where national health systems have been overwhelmed or destroyed.

WHO’s central role in research, standards and coordinating policy responses

The repercussions of the US’ withdrawal extend far beyond infectious disease control. WHO programs support crucial research on environmental health threats and social determinants of disease—research that becomes increasingly vital as climate change intensifies global health challenges. The organization’s studies on heat-related illness, changing disease vectors, and health system resilience inform critical adaptation strategies. WHO also provides essential technical guidance for strengthening health systems against climate impacts, from designing heat-resistant medical facilities to establishing early warning systems for extreme weather events.

The organization also plays a central role in setting international health standards and coordinating policy responses. Its guidelines shape everything from pharmaceutical quality controls to emergency preparedness plans. By withdrawing, we surrender our ability to influence these vital processes when American leadership is most needed. The vacuum created by the absence of the United States will inevitably be filled by other powers whose priorities may not align with global public health best practices.

“Logo @ World Health Organization @ Pregn” (CC BY 2.0) by *_*

Why, now, the US needs to be part of the WHO more than ever

The timing could not be worse. Rather than retreat from international cooperation, we need to strengthen it. Historical analysis shows that international coordination becomes more critical, not less, during periods of global instability. The post-COVID landscape demands more substantial global health architecture, not its dismantling. WHO’s technical expertise, coordinating capacity, and ability to mobilize resources make it uniquely positioned to address emerging health threats that no country can tackle alone.

Moving forward requires three immediate steps. First, the US must restore full WHO funding and participation to maintain global health security. This means rejoining the organization and fully engaging in its governance and technical committees. Second, we need expanded support for WHO’s equity-focused initiatives to address widening health disparities. This includes strengthening programs that help low-resource countries build resilient health systems and respond to emergencies. Third, we must maintain active engagement while pursuing necessary reforms, rather than abandon our seat at the table. Real change comes through sustained involvement, not withdrawal.

Implementation demands both strong institutional frameworks and deep community involvement. My ethnographic research has consistently shown that successful health interventions require this dual approach. WHO helps translate global guidelines into locally appropriate actions while maintaining the technical standards for effective coordination. The organization’s community health worker programs and local capacity building initiatives demonstrate how international support can strengthen, rather than replace, local health systems.

Decades of global health progress are now at stake

The stakes here are stark. This withdrawal doesn’t just abdicate American leadership—it threatens to undermine decades of progress in building global health infrastructure and partnerships. Most critically, it abandons our moral obligation to support international cooperation in protecting public health. The consequences will fall hardest on those facing the most significant health challenges: communities affected by conflict, climate change, and poverty.

Before these consequences become permanent, the United States must reverse its decision to withdraw from the World Health Organization. Global health challenges are increasing, not decreasing. We can only hope to meet them effectively by strengthening international cooperation, not weakening it.

• Subscribe to LSE USAPP’s email newsletter to receive a weekly article roundup. 
• Please read our comments policy before commenting. 
• Note: This article gives the views of the author, and not the position of USAPP – American Politics and Policy, nor the London School of Economics. 
• Shortened URL for this post: https://wp.me/p3I2YF-eRb