The World Health Organization (WHO) is facing a crisis after President Donald Trump announced the United States would withdraw from the U.N. health agency. In a recent closed-door meeting with diplomats, WHO’s Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus appealed to global leaders to pressure Washington to reverse its decision, warning that the exit of the U.S. will significantly affect the organization’s capacity to respond to global health crises.
According to internal materials obtained by The Associated Press, WHO officials are concerned about how the absence of the U.S. will affect the funding and functionality of critical programs, particularly health emergencies.
US Contributions Vital to WHO’s Global Health Efforts
The United States is WHO’s largest donor for the 2024-2025 period, accounting for approximately 14% of the agency’s total budget of $6.9 billion, with an estimated contribution of $988 million. This American funding is what keeps WHO’s health emergencies program afloat-the very program that plays a significant role in handling global disease outbreaks.
In particular, the organization’s European office has seen a major dependence on U.S. contributions, with more than 80% of its $154 million budget allocated for “readiness functions” linked to emergency preparedness. This funding, alongside U.S. support for operations in regions like the Middle East, Ukraine, and Sudan, is essential to the WHO’s ability to respond quickly and effectively to health crises worldwide.
It is reported in a critical document presented at a WHO budget meeting that U.S. funding accounts for up to 40% of WHO’s large-scale emergency operations. The erasure of this funding will deal a huge blow to eradication programs against polio, programs over HIV prevention, and tuberculosis treatment, all of which will be affected by the loss of American funding.
WHO Might Run into a Potential Deficit and Emergency Cutbacks
Speaking in a private session about the US exit, WHO finance director George Kyriacou said that the agency will be facing a “hand-to-mouth” cash flow situation without US contributions. He fears that the current rate of spending at WHO is not sustainable without US funding. The agency is already reeling under unpaid contributions from the US for 2024, which is driving WHO into a budget deficit.
Kyriacou disclosed that the attempts to get back past payments from the U.S. have been unsuccessful, which further strained the finances. The WHO’s budget outlook indicated that by the first half of 2026, the agency would not be able to cover critical costs, which would be a serious blow to global health programs.
Global Leaders Called to Pressure the US to Rejoin WHO
WHO’s Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus implored its member countries to force the United States to rescind its withdrawal. Even now, WHO still provides some of the data that U.S. scientists need while the full blow of the withdrawal is still pending. In addressing the diplomats, Tedros indicated that U.S. participation has been very valuable in WHO efforts, especially for tracking and acting on global outbreaks of diseases.
“We continue to give them information because they need it,” Tedros said. “We would appreciate it if you continue to push and reach out to them to reconsider.”
Tedros also spoke on U.S. criticisms of the WHO handling on the COVID-19 pandemic, among other matters, indicating that the agency has acted swiftly enough to raise alertness around the world regarding early January 2020 virus threats. He clarified that the organization has since taken many reforms meant to improve the capacity of its response to emerging health issues in the future.
The U.S. Exit: A Blow to Global Health
Trump’s decision to pull out of WHO, initiated by an executive order in January 2025, deals a devastating blow to the organization. Many global leaders have criticized this move, which could have severe implications for the international community in tackling global health crises, particularly disease outbreaks.
Bjorn Kummel is a senior official in Germany’s health ministry who described the United States’ exit as “the most extensive crisis WHO has been facing in the past decades.” He warned the loss of this funding could put some of the WHO’s more important functions to the ground-from global disease surveillance to emergency efforts.
I think all of you can play a role,” Tedros implored countries, calling on them to keep up the pressure on the U.S. government to rescind the decision. Other diplomats, from Bangladesh and France among others, raised questions on how WHO intends to handle the shortfall in funding and where it will have to slash spending.
A Redrawing of Global Health?
According to some analysts, although this presents a challenge in terms of U.S. withdrawal, it can also serve as an opportunity for redefinition in the face of global public health. “The WHO’s funding from the United States is less than 1 percent of the country’s total health budget, yet it reaps so much in the way of information and intelligence regarding the emergence of disease outbreaks around the world,” says Matthew Kavanagh, director of Georgetown University’s Center for Global Health Policy and Politics.
Kavanagh stressed that the WHO, despite being “massively underfunded,” provides the U.S. and other countries with vital information to help them manage and respond to health crises. The loss of access to this information would lead to even worse health outcomes, both globally and for Americans.
According to emergencies chief Dr. Michael Ryan, WHO, “We do recognize that the U.S. withdrawal has enormous impacts on us but also hope that member states could make up for some of those funding gaps”.
He identified the U.S. exit as “essentially breaking up with you” and a breakdown in global cooperation.