In summer of 2020, 15 recognized leaders in American public health came together to write an article in The Lancet, one of the world’s most preeminent medical journals, denouncing Donald Trump’s intention to withdraw the United States from the World Health Organization, a decision that was later reversed by President Biden before until it comes into force.
Nearly five years later, one of the first salvos of Trump’s second term was to start the withdrawal process again the United States to the WHO. The move is already sparking both controversy and threats of legal challenges.
According to a Joint resolution of 1948 Passed by both houses of Congress, any such withdrawal requires the United States to give one year’s notice to the WHO, but it appears that Trump’s intentions are to withdraw immediately and to do so without asking Congressional approval.
“The executive order announces WHO’s immediate withdrawal, and it does not seek authorization from Congress, nor does it provide the required one year’s notice,” says Lawrence Gostin, professor of public health law. at the Georgetown University Law Center in Washington, DC. and one of the co-authors of the 2020 Lancet article. “In my opinion, this is reckless and illegal, and it must be challenged in court.”
Trump has a long history of criticizing the WHO, previously accusing the organization of being “corrupt”, ripping off America and “severely mismanaging and covering up” the spread of Covid-19. The United States has historically been one of the WHO’s largest donors, with some estimates suggesting it provides a fifth of the organization’s total budget. Between 2022 and 2023, the United States provided WHO nearly $1.3 billion.
However, Gostin and others are particularly concerned about the impacts of a U.S. withdrawal on the country’s ability to manage the ongoing threat of infectious diseases. Although the WHO has a wide-ranging mandate, ranging from advice on essential medicines to public policy recommendations on everything from tobacco and drug use to road safety, its impact is arguably greatest when This involves monitoring potentially problematic new diseases, such as avian flu, and coordinating an international response.
“Withdrawing from the WHO makes us lonelier, more vulnerable and more fragile in the world,” says Gostin. “We cannot close a border against a pathogen. We need WHO on the ground to put out the fires before they reach the United States. And we also need the WHO’s vast network to give us the information about mutations and viruses we need to develop life-saving vaccines and medical treatments.
What happens next depends on reactions from other countries and nongovernmental organizations such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, according to Sten Vermund, chief medical officer of the Global Virus Network and another co-author of the Lancet paper. the World Bank and Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, all of which provide significant funding to the WHO. After Trump reduced the US contribution to the WHO to $680 million in 2020-2021, Germany replied by quadrupling its contributions to more than a billion dollars. The Danish government also agree double its contributions, with a strong focus on improving sexual and reproductive health and combating the increase in non-communicable diseases.