Has the United States really withdrawn from the World Health Organization (WHO)? This topic is set to be discussed at the upcoming WHO Executive Board meeting.
When President Donald Trump took office, he announced the withdrawal as part of his administration’s move away from international organizations. However, this exit isn’t straightforward. According to international law, the process of leaving the WHO involves complexities that could mean the U.S. hasn’t legally exited.
### A Brief Look Back
The WHO Constitution, which dates back to 1946, doesn’t allow for a simple withdrawal. This lack of a unilateral exit clause raised concerns during Congressional discussions on WHO membership. The U.S. Congress agreed to join the WHO with a condition: the U.S. can withdraw with a year’s notice, but it must meet its financial obligations for the current fiscal year.
In 1948, President Harry Truman submitted the acceptance of this condition, allowing the U.S. a unique right to withdraw that no other member has.
Fast forward to now, Trump announced a potential withdrawal shortly after starting his second term. Although he filed a withdrawal notice during the COVID-19 pandemic, the Biden administration withdrew that notice before the year was up.
In January 2025, the U.S. gave formal notification to the U.N. Secretary-General, stating its intention to withdraw. At that time, funding was also halted, leaving the U.S. with back dues exceeding $133 million.
### WHO’s Response
The WHO hopes the U.S. will re-engage but faces a dilemma: should it treat the U.S. withdrawal as valid even when financial obligations remain unpaid? Currently, the U.S. is still listed as a party to the WHO under international law.
A recent WHO report discusses the legal implications of the U.S. withdrawal. It highlights that while most countries cannot leave unilaterally, the U.S. has a unique right to exit, but only if it pays its dues. The report raises important questions about what constitutes the “current fiscal year” and whether financial obligations are a necessary condition to withdraw.
### International Law Context
Legally, the U.S. position in WHO is precarious. If the U.S. fails to meet its financial obligations, it could lose its voting privileges and influence within the organization. Similar measures have been imposed on countries like Afghanistan and Iran, which were suspended for unpaid dues.
The situation is reminiscent of the late 1940s when some Soviet bloc countries tried to withdraw from the WHO. Though those countries claimed a right to exit, they were treated as inactive members for failing to meet obligations. They were allowed to regain active status later without a formal re-accession process.
### What’s Next for the U.S.?
For now, it appears unlikely that the U.S. will participate in future WHO activities. This disengagement is significant, as the U.S. has historically been a major supporter of global health initiatives.
Looking at international practice, the WHO might consider the U.S. an inactive member due to its nonpayment of dues, which means it won’t have a say in WHO matters.
Despite the lack of U.S. funding, the WHO continues its essential work. Recently, the organization adopted a legally binding Pandemic Agreement to improve global health responses. With the U.S. stepping back, its influence over such negotiations diminishes.
In summary, the attempted withdrawal of the United States from the WHO reveals the tension between national sovereignty and international cooperation. While the U.S. struggles with its commitments, the WHO’s work goes on. It remains to be seen whether a future administration will choose to restore the country’s active participation in this vital organization.
Source link
Diplomacy,executive branch,Foreign Policy,health,International Law,Multilateralism,Public Health,Treaties,Trump administration second term,United Nations (UN),United States (US),World Health Organization
