For many years, the United States has played a significant role in shaping global health policies and initiatives.
However, health policy experts suggest that President Donald Trump’s executive orders, issued on his first day in office, might mark the end of this influence.
One key order to withdraw from the World Health Organization (WHO) means the US is likely to be absent from upcoming WHO meetings, potentially reducing its influence in global health discussions.
The WHO, which consists of 194 member countries, sets health priorities and coordinates responses to health crises, including sharing crucial data and resources during emergencies. Without the US, leadership in these areas could shift to other countries, like China.
Kenneth Bernard, a visiting fellow at Stanford University, stated that China could fill the leadership void left by the US withdrawal, a development he believes is detrimental to America’s interests.
Trump’s executive orders also aim to reassess the US’s approach to international aid, criticizing the WHO for mishandling the COVID-19 pandemic and claiming US aid has contributed to global instability.
These actions mirror the recommendations of the Heritage Foundation’s “Project 2025,” a conservative policy agenda that calls for the US to distance itself from the WHO due to what it views as the organization’s failure and its political agenda.
The US has long been one of the largest contributors to global health funding, supporting organizations like the WHO and USAID.
A reduction in US involvement could hinder efforts to combat diseases and provide life-saving care in lower-income countries, making global health less secure, experts argue.
Tom Bollyky, director of global health at the Council on Foreign Relations, warned that isolating the US from global health challenges would not only jeopardize American safety but also leave other nations vulnerable.
Travel bans and policies isolating the US from international health risks often provide a false sense of security.
Although a country cannot officially withdraw from the WHO for a year after giving notice, Trump’s 2020 termination notice could be leveraged by the administration, claiming that more than a year has passed.
The US had previously suspended funds to the WHO, reducing its contributions significantly, and although President Biden restored membership and payments, the US’s financial support remains lower than it was before.
The WHO, funded by member dues, plays a vital role in combating diseases like polio, HIV, and malaria, particularly in countries with limited healthcare resources.
The US’s reduced contributions may have a lasting impact on these crucial programs, particularly in conflict zones and poorer regions where the WHO operates.
The WHO’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic, including alerting the world to the virus and facilitating vaccine development, was criticized by Trump.
While acknowledging some internal issues at the WHO, experts note that many of the US’s COVID-related problems stemmed from domestic mismanagement.
Trump’s accusations against the WHO also extend to its handling of China’s response to the pandemic, with the former president blaming the organization for being too lenient on China.
Despite these claims, the WHO has repeatedly called for transparency from China, although it lacks the authority to compel compliance.
Trump’s executive orders also target ongoing pandemic treaty negotiations at the WHO, with concerns that the US might lose influence on intellectual property and vaccine distribution if it withdraws.
Countries in Asia, Africa, and Latin America have pushed for more flexible patent laws to increase global vaccine production in crises, and the US’s absence could ease the push for such reforms.
Ayoade Alakija, chair of the Africa Union’s Vaccine Delivery Alliance, noted that the shifting power dynamics could result in emerging economies having more influence on the WHO’s policies, potentially creating a more equitable global health landscape.
Despite potential gains for emerging economies, the immediate effect of the US’s withdrawal could be a loss of funding for vital health programs.
The US has contributed roughly 15% of the WHO’s budget, and a reduction in this funding could hinder efforts to combat diseases like HIV, malaria, and tuberculosis.
Additionally, the scientific collaborations facilitated by the WHO, including partnerships with US institutions like Columbia and Johns Hopkins Universities, could be disrupted, leading to less international cooperation on research.
Trump’s third executive order also directs the State Department to align its programs with an “America First” foreign policy, which includes reexamining US international aid and its impact on global stability.
This move is part of a broader ideological shift outlined in Project 2025, which advocates for reducing international aid focused on climate change and reproductive healthcare while supporting free markets and business deregulation.
Experts suggest that the executive orders reflect more ideological positioning than strategic planning.
Despite this, the White House has not provided further comment on these actions.
