On his first day in office, President Trump signed a slew of executive orders ranging from a declaration that the U.S. government will only recognize two genders to an attack on birthright citizenship, which is guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. Among the most consequential of these executive orders is one that withdraws the U.S. from the World Health Organization (WHO), a move that has sparked concern amongst public health experts. 

Trump cites inefficiency as the reason behind his withdrawal, claiming that the WHO is “corrupt” and has “rip[ped] off” the U.S. He also criticizes the organization for what he considers to be a “slow” response to COVID-19 in 2020.

In practice, however, the WHO is essential to health safety around the globe. The organization works to improve access to medicine and health services, helps to train the health workforce, tracks health-related data, prepares for and responds to health crises and outbreaks, provides emergency response guidance, and supplies critical resources during emergencies. It played a crucial role in fighting infections and accelerating the vaccination process during the COVID-19 pandemic, and its efforts have been critical to fighting cholera, dengue, Marburg virus disease (MVD), and mpox (formerly known as monkeypox) in recent years.

However, the organization’s work is funded entirely by the contributions of member states, which are GDP-based dues calculated by the United Nations, and voluntary donations. The U.S. has been the WHO’s leading donor for years, providing a combination of standard membership payments and significant voluntary donations. Though a member state is required to give twelve months’ notice before withdrawal—which is why Biden was able to halt Trump’s first attempt at withdrawal in 2020, during the final six months of his term—the U.S. government will likely halt the voluntary portion of its donations long before this period has expired. As these sources of funding disappear, several WHO programs may experience a sharp decline in funding, which could significantly damage their operations.

In addition to interfering with the WHO’s functioning on a global scale, U.S. withdrawal may also directly jeopardize the health and safety of U.S. citizens. For instance, by withdrawing, the U.S. surrenders its access to the WHO’s databases of influenza strains, surveillance of new infectious diseases, and other health information. As a result, death tolls from influenza complications may increase, and the U.S. will likely become far more vulnerable to global microbial threats. 

“We in the U.S. don’t experience many of the infectious diseases we see around the world in large part because they are stopped in these countries, oftentimes through the support and coordination of the WHO,” says Dr. Michael Osterholm, director of the University of Minnesota’s Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy. “Funding the WHO is about investing in our own health here in this country.”

Additionally, the U.S. will be sacrificing its role as a major leader in global health policy. Supporting vital WHO programs allows the U.S. government to build bridges and valuable relationships with a number of distant or otherwise inaccessible countries. U.S. membership also allows the WHO and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), considered a leading public health agency on a global scale, to work closely together, which facilitates the exchange of information about health threats, beneficial policies, and preventative measures. As a result, withdrawal renders the U.S. far more isolated in the public health world and global politics alike, impeding and complicating its ability to respond to both national and international health crises in the future.

U.S. withdrawal will also disrupt ongoing WHO negotiations concerning an agreement that will create collaboration and preparation guidelines for potential future pandemics. U.S. leadership—both within the organization and in global politics—is crucial, and its absence will create a vacuum that calls into question what the agreement may look like and how effective it will be long-term. Lawrence Gostin, a Georgetown University public health law professor, even warns that the chaos of U.S. withdrawal “could be sowing the seeds for the next pandemic.”

Whether or not they appreciate Trump’s assessment of the WHO, experts agree that the risks of U.S. withdrawal far outweigh any potential benefits. “The WHO can be improved; there are inefficiencies, like with all organizations,” admits Paul Spiegel, international health professor and director of the Center for Humanitarian Health at Johns Hopkins University. “But by pulling out, and removing the huge amount of money that the U.S. gives, you’re not allowing the WHO to make reforms. You’re hobbling it.”

Information obtained from the World Health Organization, CNN, Time Magazine, and MIT Technology Review.