President Trump’s decision to withdraw the United States from the World Health Organization (WHO) stemmed from the WHO’s mismanagement and pro-China bias during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Adding to this, many in Congress support leaving the WHO due to concerns over the organization’s questionable effectiveness, its heavy financial dependence on the U.S., and issues related to national sovereignty.
critics warning of devastating effects on global health. As the WHO’s largest donor, contributing about 16% of its funding, the U.S. plays a significant role in the organization’s ability to respond to health emergencies.
Critics argue that a withdrawal would cripple the WHO, cede leadership to China, and isolate the U.S. from critical global health initiatives.
However, these concerns miss the broader point: many proponents of withdrawal believe the WHO is ineffective and unworthy of continued U.S. support.
Supporters of a withdrawal argue that the U.S. health system would not be harmed by leaving, as the WHO has no authority within the United States, nor is the U.S. dependent on it for health guidance.
The fact that a U.S. pullout could hinder the WHO’s operations is irrelevant to those who distrust the organization and see little value in funding it.
Proponents also emphasize that if Europe or China finds the WHO necessary and effective, nothing prevents them from stepping up to fill the funding gap.
The argument that a U.S. withdrawal would create an opportunity for increased Chinese influence over the WHO is also challenged by withdrawal advocates.
They point out that one reason for pulling out is precisely because China already wields too much influence within the organization.
If the global community were concerned about Chinese leadership, they could have objected earlier—but they didn’t.
The world, comprising 193 other countries, has the option to lead and fund the WHO if it values its independence.
If the U.S. steps back and no one else steps forward, it raises the question of whether the world is, in fact, comfortable with China’s role in the WHO or simply unwilling to take on greater responsibility.
President Trump criticized the WHO for failing to act transparently during the covid pandemic and for delaying the acknowledgment of human-to-human transmission, despite emerging evidence.
Trump also accused the organization of being overly influenced by China, pointing to its initial praise of China’s response and its limited engagement with Taiwan, which had raised early warnings about the virus.
Another contentious issue was the WHO’s opposition to early travel restrictions, including those implemented by the U.S., though the organization denies explicitly criticizing these measures.
The WHO defended its actions, claiming it acted promptly with the information available and maintained open communication with China to gather crucial data.
Critics of withdrawal warn that it could undermine global health coordination, disrupting collaborations on issues like influenza vaccine design, epidemic preparedness, and global vaccine trials.
They argue this could leave the U.S. vulnerable to future outbreaks. Supporters, however, see the so-called “coordinated” response to COVID-19 as a cautionary tale, pointing to the devastation it caused to the global economy and the immense suffering it inflicted on billions.
From their perspective, losing global coordination is a benefit, not a drawback. They also note that many Americans opposing the WHO reject experimental or mandatory vaccines and have no desire to participate in global epidemic preparedness.
The global medical establishment is so desperate to prevent a U.S. withdrawal from the WHO that The Lancet, a leading medical journal, went so far as to claim it would be illegal for Trump to pull the U.S. out. In reality, however, it’s not illegal—it simply requires Congressional approval.
Sovereignty concerns are a major reason why Trump, members of Congress, and many in the public support withdrawing from the WHO.
They fear that international organizations like the WHO could influence or override national health policies, prompting some lawmakers to push for withdrawal to ensure that domestic health decisions remain under U.S. control.
Supporters of the WHO argue that these sovereignty fears are unwarranted.
However, The Lancet acknowledges one of the WHO’s limitations: its “limited authority to ensure state compliance with the International Health Regulations (IHR), including constrained ability to independently verify official state reports.”
Ironically, this lack of enforcement authority, which supporters cite as a weakness, is precisely why opponents in the U.S. reject any expansion of the WHO’s powers on American soil.
Although the WHO lacks enforcement authority, the U.S. is legally bound to comply with the International Health Regulations (IHR), a framework established in 2005 to govern how countries respond to cross-border public health events and emergencies.
The IHR outline nations’ obligations, such as reporting significant public health events and determining whether an event qualifies as a “public health emergency of international concern” (PHEIC).
They also require countries to designate a National IHR Focal Point for communication with the WHO and to maintain public health surveillance and response capacities, including at ports of entry.
Donald Trump’s concerns about the WHO are well-founded, and his decision to withdraw the U.S. from the organization will resonate with many Americans.
Opponents of withdrawal have yet to present a compelling argument that proves remaining in the WHO is in the best interest of the United States.
Withdrawal would be another example of putting America first, allowing the rest of the world to fund and participate in the transnational globalism they choose—without relying on U.S. support.
The post Trump is Right: The U.S. Should Leave the WHO appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
