By
The US Withdrawal from WHO: A Threat to Global Health Security
Donald Trump’s decision to withdraw the United States from the World Health Organization (WHO) during his presidency sparked widespread condemnation from the global health community. Signed as part of a series of executive orders on his first day in office, the move highlighted dissatisfaction with the WHO’s handling of global health crises, such as the COVID-19 pandemic. However, analysts warn that this decision jeopardizes global health security and places the lives of millions in poorer nations at risk, including those in countries like Sri Lanka.
The WHO plays a critical role in supporting public health systems across the globe, particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). In Sri Lanka, the organization has been instrumental in improving healthcare access, eradicating diseases, and responding to health emergencies. Over the years, the WHO has collaborated with Sri Lanka’s Ministry of Health to combat dengue outbreaks, enhance maternal and child health, and eliminate malaria. The organization’s technical guidance and funding have been central to these achievements, making it an indispensable partner in Sri Lanka’s healthcare progress.
However, with the United States being the largest financial contributor to the WHO, its withdrawal created a significant funding shortfall, threatening the continuity of such vital programs.
Funding Gaps and Impacts on Global Health
The US contributed $1.28 billion to the WHO’s 2022–2023 budget, accounting for approximately 15% of its total funding. The sudden removal of these contributions led to a $2 billion funding gap, which disproportionately affects vulnerable nations like Sri Lanka. Rebecca Grais, executive director of the Pasteur Network, emphasized, “The WHO provides critical guidance and support, particularly for populations with the least resources and the least access to healthcare.”
In Sri Lanka, this funding shortfall could disrupt pandemic preparedness efforts, disease surveillance systems, and maternal health programs. The WHO’s guidance during the COVID-19 pandemic was pivotal in bolstering Sri Lanka’s healthcare response, and continued support is essential to mitigate future health threats. Reduced funding also risks delaying the detection of emerging outbreaks, such as dengue fever, which remains a significant public health concern in the country.
Moreover, the US withdrawal has broader implications for global health initiatives, including ongoing negotiations for a Pandemic Treaty. Pete Baker, policy fellow at the Center for Global Development, warned that the lack of US political support for such agreements could hinder progress on ensuring equitable access to vaccines and medicines. For Sri Lanka and other LMICs, these initiatives are crucial for addressing health inequities and strengthening resilience against future crises.
Broader Consequences for LMICs
Trump’s decision also undermined global consensus on critical issues such as patent waivers for vaccines and medicines. Without US involvement, achieving global agreement on these waivers becomes more challenging, delaying access to affordable treatments in countries like Sri Lanka. Grais noted that US-based pharmaceutical companies, many of which hold key patents, may feel less compelled to participate in global initiatives for voluntary licensing if US policies diverge from WHO recommendations.
This divergence could slow down the availability of life-saving drugs and vaccines in LMICs, leaving vulnerable populations in Sri Lanka and beyond at greater risk during health crises.
Filling the Void and Strengthening Local Systems
While the US withdrawal presented significant challenges, it also created opportunities for other nations to step up. Analysts suggest that increased contributions from member states or philanthropic organizations could help the WHO adapt to funding shortfalls. However, financial contributions alone may not replace the political leadership and expertise that the US historically provided.
For Sri Lanka, strengthening local health systems and diversifying funding sources could help mitigate the risks posed by geopolitical shifts. The WHO’s partnership with Sri Lanka has demonstrated the importance of investing in sustainable healthcare solutions, such as universal health coverage and robust disease surveillance networks.
Peggy Oti-Boateng, executive director of the African Academy of Sciences, highlighted the need for LMICs to invest more in health research and innovation. “Countries like Sri Lanka must prioritize strategic investments in healthcare to ensure resilience and self-sufficiency,” she said.
WHO Reforms and Future Prospects
The WHO expressed regret over the US decision, emphasizing its critical role in protecting global health security, including within the United States itself. Over the past seven years, the organization has implemented significant reforms to improve accountability and efficiency, enabling it to address global health challenges more effectively.
In Sri Lanka, the WHO has proven to be a key partner in tackling health challenges that the country could not address alone. However, the US withdrawal highlights the fragility of multilateral health systems and the need for sustained collaboration. As Grais aptly stated, “At a time when collaboration is essential, this move undermines the shared responsibility needed to tackle health crises.”
Moving forward, nations must reaffirm their commitment to supporting the WHO’s mission to safeguard global health security. For Sri Lanka, continued engagement with the WHO and other international partners will be essential to advancing healthcare progress. Strengthening local health systems and fostering regional collaborations can also help buffer the impact of external geopolitical shifts.
Ultimately, while the US withdrawal marked a significant setback, it underscored the importance of global solidarity in addressing shared health challenges. As always, it is the most vulnerable populations, such as those in Sri Lanka, that stand to lose the most without sustained international cooperation.
