Experts deplore Trump's order for US to exit from WHO

One of the first acts of President Donald Trump after his inauguration yesterday was to order the start of the US's withdrawal from the World Health Organization (WHO).

In a move more akin to theatre than politics, Trump signed a series of executive orders on stage at a post-inaugural rally and later on camera at the White House, with the WHO order coming alongside other controversial measures, including pardoning nearly 1,600 people involved in the 6th January capitol riots, revoking the right of citizenship for people born in the US, and withdrawing from the Paris climate agreement.

Trump wanted to withdraw the US from the WHO in his first term in office, but was unable to get that completed before he lost the 2020 election and the decision was reversed by former President Joe Biden. Now, with the order signed on day one, there is a greater likelihood that it will be carried out.

"That's a big one," said Trump, as he was handed the WHO order to sign among dozens of others, in a signal of his determination to get the exit over the line this time. "World Health ripped us off, everybody rips off the United States," he added. "It's not going to happen any more."

He was deeply critical of the WHO's handling of the COVID-19 pandemic during his last term, and that is mentioned in the new order alongside a broadside at the amount of financial support that the US provides to the organisation compared to other countries.

It cites the WHO's "mishandling of the COVID-19 pandemic that arose out of Wuhan, China, and other global health crises, its failure to adopt urgently needed reforms, and its inability to demonstrate independence from the inappropriate political influence of WHO member states."

Moreover, the document says that the WHO "continues to demand unfairly onerous payments from the US, far out of proportion with other countries' assessed payments. China, with a population of 1.4 billion, has 300% of the population of the US, yet contributes nearly 90% less to the WHO."

Trump said that it is "a little unfair" that the US is contributing $500 million to the WHO while China is paying only $39 million.

The WHO hasn't published an official response to the order yet, but there's little doubt that the US withdrawal would have a seismic effect on the organisation, stripping it of around a fifth of its funding and threatening important public health initiatives including vaccination programmes, tackling the health impacts of climate change and conflict, and eradication drives for infectious diseases like polio, malaria, and dracunculiasis.

Just last week, the WHO launched an appeal for $1.5 billion in emergency funding to help it respond to humanitarian crises in Afghanistan, the occupied Palestinian territories, Sudan, Ethiopia, and other regions and tackle emerging threats like cholera and mpox.

Lawrence Gostin, a public health law professor at Georgetown University, posted on X.com that withdrawing from the WHO would be "the most momentous" of Trump's early orders, calling it "a cataclysmic presidential decision" that will deliver "a grievous wound to world health, but a still deeper wound to the US."

In another post, Gostin added: "US health agencies & our pharmaceutical companies rely on WHO for data needed to develop vaccines & therapies. Instead of being first to get vaccines, we will be at the back of the line. Withdrawal from WHO inflicts a deep wound on US security & our competitive edge in innovation."

He and other public health figures have also argued that the withdrawal could result in greater influence by other countries like China and Russia on the shaping of public health, exclude the US from critical data-sharing initiatives and research networks, and damage US-international relations.

Meanwhile, Dr Eric Feigl-Ding, an epidemiologist and health economist and chair of the New England Complex Systems Institute (NECSI) think tank, has asserted on Bluesky that Trump's unilateral action in ordering the withdrawal from the WHO is unlawful, as it does not have express approval from Congress.