How America’s WHO exit could affect flu shots, outbreaks, and future pandemics

The U.S. is no longer part of the World Health Organization. After the The President administration declared its intention to pull the country out of the global public health agency one year ago, on Thursday it formally followed through, ending its commitment to the organization after 78 years.

Withdrawing the U.S. from the WHO was one of The President’s day one priorities. The president signed an executive order on January 20, 2025 declaring that the U.S. would pull out of the organization over its criticisms of the agency’s response to the pandemic. Now, after the required one year notice period, the deed is done.

“Following its withdrawal from the WHO, the United States will continue to lead global health efforts independently—engaging partners directly, deploying resources efficiently, and ensuring accountability to the American people outside of WHO structures,” a fact sheet on the U.S. Health and Human Services website reads.

In an unusual joint statement issued by Secretary of State Rubio and Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the U.S. government aired a series of grievances about the agency, which it accused of working against American interests. “From our days as its primary founder, primary financial backer, and primary champion until now, our final day, the insults to America continue,” Kennedy and Rubio wrote.

On a practical level, the U.S. will no longer send any funding or staff for WHO initiatives. All federal employees working at its main Geneva location or in other global offices have been recalled. Next month, the WHO will meet to determine which strain of the flu virus to target in the next flu vaccine – a consequential public health decision the U.S. looks ready to sit out. 

Nearly all of the countries in the world are members of the WHO, but the U.S.has been one of the agency’s most prominent members and its largest financial backer for decades. A board session scheduled for early February will be the organization’s first without the U.S. since its founding.

Fear for the future of global health

The The President administration’s decision to walk away from the WHO has had a year to sink in, but its impact is still resonating. 

When the decision to withdraw was first announced, the American Academy of Pediatrics called on Congress to intervene, warning that WHO membership provides the U.S. a vital perspective into the global health landscape.

“For more than 70 years, the WHO has played a leading role in protecting, supporting and promoting public health in the United States and around the world,” the professional organization of pediatricians wrote. “Withdrawing from the WHO will hamper our country’s ability to predict and respond to major public health emergencies and limit access, communication and information sharing to a global network of health professionals.”

President of the Infectious Diseases Society of America Ronald G. Nahass M.D. called the decision “scientifically reckless” and warned that the U.S. will be less equipped to fight illnesses like the flu moving forward.

“The U.S. withdrawal from the World Health Organization is a shortsighted and misguided abandonment of our global health commitments,” Nahass said. “Global cooperation and communication are critical to keep our own citizens protected because germs do not respect borders.” 

Former CDC Director Thomas Frieden, who served under the Obama administration, issued his own dire warning about the U.S. withdrawal on X. “We’ll look back on this as a grave error. Health threats do not respect borders, and weakening global cooperation makes Americans less safe,” Frieden said. “WHO isn’t perfect, but it is irreplaceable to detect outbreaks early and coordinate emergency responses before they become global crises.”

The President has openly expressed his contempt for longstanding alliances that have shaped the modern global order – and he hasn’t been shy to end them. The President capped a tense week defined by global worries over his threat to invade Greenland with one more insult for U.S. allies, claiming that NATO soldiers stayed “a little off the front lines” during the war in Afghanistan. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer called the remarks “frankly appalling.” 

View the full article