The World Health Organization (WHO) has formally expressed its deep regret regarding the United States’ notification of its intent to withdraw from the organization. As a founding member of the UN specialized agency, the United States has historically played a pivotal role in the organization’s most significant public health triumphs. From the successful global eradication of smallpox to the ongoing, complex battles against polio, HIV, Ebola, influenza, tuberculosis, and malaria, the U.S. has been a cornerstone of international health cooperation. This long-standing partnership has also extended to addressing critical modern challenges, including the rise of neglected tropical diseases, the escalating threat of antimicrobial resistance, and the advancement of global food safety standards.
The WHO leadership has characterized the U.S. decision as one that diminishes both the security of the United States and the stability of global health infrastructure. This notification of withdrawal is not merely a diplomatic footnote; it initiates a series of formal procedural reviews. The legal and operational implications of this move are slated for consideration by the WHO Executive Board during its regular meeting scheduled to begin on February 2. Subsequently, the matter will move to the World Health Assembly, the organization’s highest decision-making body, during its annual meeting in May 2026.
The tension between Washington and the WHO has been punctuated by sharp rhetoric. The U.S. government has publicly accused the organization of being “trashed and tarnished,” alleging that the WHO insulted American leadership and compromised its own institutional independence. The WHO has categorically rejected these characterizations, asserting that the reverse is true. In its official response, the organization emphasized that it has consistently sought to engage with the United States in good faith, maintaining a policy of full respect for the nation’s sovereignty, as it does with all 194 of its member states.
Central to the American justification for withdrawal are allegations concerning the WHO’s performance during the COVID-19 pandemic. The U.S. government has cited perceived “failures” during the crisis, specifically accusing the organization of obstructing the timely and accurate sharing of critical health information and attempting to conceal those shortcomings. While the WHO acknowledges that no government or global institution navigated the unprecedented scale of the COVID-19 crisis without error, it maintains that its response was rooted in the best available evidence and executed with rapid, transparent communication.
Throughout the pandemic, the WHO’s strategy centered on providing guidance to member states, advocating for the use of masks, vaccines, and physical distancing protocols. The organization notes, however, that it never recommended mandates for masks or vaccines, nor did it advocate for lockdowns. The WHO emphasizes that while it provided scientific evidence and technical support, the final authority to implement restrictive measures remained firmly with sovereign governments. It was the responsibility of each nation to evaluate the evidence and make decisions they deemed to be in the best interest of their own citizens.
The timeline of the WHO’s response to the initial outbreak remains a point of significant contention. On December 31, 2019, immediately following the first reports of a cluster of cases involving “pneumonia of unknown cause” in Wuhan, China, the WHO activated its emergency incident management system and formally requested further information from Chinese authorities. By January 11, 2020—the date the first death was reported in China—the WHO had already utilized formal communication channels, public statements, and social media platforms to alert the international community. During this same period, the organization convened global experts and began disseminating comprehensive technical guidance to help countries prepare their health systems.
When the WHO Director-General declared COVID-19 a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) on January 30, 2020, the situation was, by all accounts, still in its early stages. Under the International Health Regulations, this declaration represents the highest level of alarm available within international health law. At that moment, there were fewer than 100 reported cases of the virus outside of China, and zero reported deaths. In the weeks and months that followed, the Director-General repeatedly urged nations to take immediate, proactive steps, warning that “the window of opportunity is closing,” emphasizing that “this is not a drill,” and characterizing the virus as “public enemy number one.”
In the wake of the pandemic, the WHO has been subject to multiple independent reviews of its performance. In response to these evaluations, the organization has implemented concrete steps to strengthen its internal processes and has significantly expanded its support for member states to bolster their individual pandemic preparedness and response capacities. The systems developed and managed by the WHO, which operate on a 24/7 basis, continue to serve as a vital safety net for all countries, including the United States, by monitoring health threats and coordinating international responses.
Regarding the U.S. assertion that the WHO has “pursued a politicized, bureaucratic agenda driven by nations hostile to American interests,” the organization maintains that this claim is entirely unfounded. As a specialized agency of the United Nations governed by 194 sovereign member states, the WHO asserts that it remains strictly impartial. Its mandate is to serve the entirety of its membership with equal dedication, operating without fear or favor to ensure the highest attainable standard of health as a fundamental right for all people, regardless of political affiliation.
The WHO continues to appreciate the ongoing engagement of its member states, who remain committed to working within the established framework to resolve the world’s most pressing communicable and non-communicable health threats. A landmark achievement in this collaboration occurred last year with the adoption of the WHO Pandemic Agreement. Once ratified, this instrument will become a cornerstone of international law, designed to provide a more robust and equitable defense against future pandemics. Furthermore, member states are currently negotiating an annex to this agreement—the Pathogen Access and Benefit Sharing (PABS) system. If successfully adopted, the PABS system will facilitate the rapid detection and sharing of pathogens with pandemic potential, while ensuring that vaccines, therapeutics, and diagnostic tools are distributed in a timely and equitable manner across the globe.
The WHO has expressed a clear desire for the United States to return to active participation in the future. Until such time, the organization remains steadfast in its constitutional mission. The path forward, according to the WHO, involves continued cooperation among nations to address health threats that transcend borders. By prioritizing scientific collaboration and international solidarity, the WHO intends to continue its work alongside all countries to protect global health security, fulfilling its mandate as the leading authority in international public health.
