01-29-2025

Withdrawing the United States From the World Health Organization

Executive OrderView the Original .pdf
View the Original .pdf

The 1-Minute Brief

What: Executive Order 14155, signed on January 20, 2025, directs the United States to withdraw from the World Health Organization (WHO). It revokes the 2021 letter that rescinded the previous withdrawal notice and halts all funding and cooperation with the WHO.

Money: The order immediately pauses all future U.S. financial contributions to the WHO. Historically, the U.S. has been the largest donor to the WHO, contributing $1.284 billion for the 2022–2023 biennium. For the 2024-2025 budget period, the U.S. assessed contribution was set at $260 million, with voluntary contributions in 2023 reaching over $367 million.

Your Impact: The withdrawal could weaken global early warning systems for disease outbreaks, potentially delaying responses to future pandemics and making Americans more vulnerable to health threats that cross borders. It also means the U.S. will no longer participate in negotiations on global health rules, such as the new pandemic agreement.

Status: This is an Executive Order, signed by the President on January 20, 2025, and published in the Federal Register. The withdrawal process is set to begin immediately, although the 1948 congressional resolution for joining the WHO requires a one-year notice.

What's Actually in the Bill

This Executive Order mandates a complete reversal of U.S. participation in the World Health Organization. It formally revokes the January 2021 action that kept the U.S. in the WHO and reinstates the intent to withdraw initially noticed in 2020. The order directs an immediate cessation of all funds and resources to the WHO, the recall of U.S. government personnel detailed to the organization, and a halt to U.S. involvement in negotiating the WHO's pandemic preparedness agreements.

Core Provisions:

  • Revokes Prior Policy: The order explicitly revokes Executive Order 13987 from January 25, 2021, which had recommitted the U.S. to the WHO.
  • Initiates Withdrawal: It reinstates the 2020 notification of withdrawal and directs the Secretary of State to inform the United Nations.
  • Halts Funding: The Secretary of State and Director of the Office of Management and Budget are ordered to "pause the future transfer of any United States Government funds, support, or resources to the WHO."
  • Recalls Personnel: Requires the recall and reassignment of all U.S. government personnel and contractors from the WHO.
  • Ceases Negotiations: The U.S. will stop all negotiations on the WHO Pandemic Agreement and amendments to the International Health Regulations.
  • Finds Alternatives: Directs officials to identify other international partners to take over activities previously done by the WHO.
  • Revises Strategy: The White House Office of Pandemic Preparedness and Response Policy is tasked with rescinding and replacing the 2024 U.S. Global Health Security Strategy.

Stated Purpose (from the Sponsors):

The executive order claims the withdrawal is necessary due to the WHO's alleged failures and dependencies.

  1. Mishandling of the COVID-19 pandemic and other health crises.
  2. Failure to adopt "urgently needed reforms."
  3. Inability to show independence from the "inappropriate political influence" of member states, particularly China.
  4. Demanding "unfairly onerous payments" from the United States compared to other nations like China.

Key Facts:

  • Affected Sectors: Healthcare, Global Public Health, Biotechnology, and International Diplomacy.
  • Timeline: The order took effect on January 20, 2025. The 1948 joint resolution that authorized U.S. membership stipulates a one-year notice for withdrawal.
  • Scope: This action affects the U.S. government's relationship with a global United Nations agency that has 194 member states.

The Backstory: How We Got Here

Timeline of Events:

Post-WWII Consensus (1948):

Following World War II, the United States was a key architect of the post-war international order. President Harry S. Truman championed U.S. membership in the WHO as vital for global stability and preventing the spread of disease. On June 14, 1948, Congress passed a joint resolution authorizing the President to join the WHO, which the U.S. formally did shortly thereafter. This resolution included a key provision: the U.S. reserved the right to withdraw with a one-year notice.

Decades of Leadership & Cooperation (1948-2019):

For over 70 years, the U.S. was a leading member and the largest financial contributor to the WHO. Through the WHO, the U.S. led and supported numerous global health initiatives, including the successful eradication of smallpox and near-eradication of polio, which directly protected Americans from these diseases. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has collaborated extensively with the WHO, embedding staff and providing technical expertise worldwide.

The COVID-19 Rupture (2020-2021):

The Trump administration grew highly critical of the WHO's response to the COVID-19 pandemic, accusing it of being too slow to act and overly influenced by China. In July 2020, the administration formally notified the UN of its intent to withdraw, a move that would have taken effect in July 2021. On his first day in office in January 2021, President Joe Biden reversed this decision, reaffirming U.S. commitment to the organization.

Why Now? The Political Calculus:

  • Campaign Promises: Fulfilling a pledge from the 2024 presidential campaign to hold the WHO accountable for its perceived failures during the COVID-19 pandemic and its relationship with China.
  • Sovereignty Concerns: The move is driven by a political viewpoint that prioritizes national sovereignty over international cooperation, arguing that global bodies like the WHO should not dictate U.S. health policy.
  • Financial Arguments: The executive order leverages the argument that the U.S. pays a disproportionate amount compared to other nations, particularly China, a point of significant political messaging.

Your Real-World Impact

The Direct Answer: This directly affects specific industries and government functions but has a potentially significant indirect impact on all Americans by altering the nation's defenses against future pandemics.

What Could Change for You:

Potential Benefits:

  • Proponents argue that redirecting funds from the WHO to other, supposedly more effective and transparent health partners could lead to better outcomes for U.S. global health investments.
  • A withdrawal could, in theory, free the U.S. from international health regulations that some view as infringing on national sovereignty.

Possible Disruptions or Costs:

Short-term (1-2 years):

  • The U.S. loses its seat at the table in coordinating global responses to ongoing and new health threats, such as mpox and influenza.
  • U.S. scientists and public health experts from agencies like the CDC will be pulled from WHO operations, ending decades of collaboration and information sharing that helps track diseases.
  • The immediate halt to funding could disrupt critical health programs in vulnerable countries, potentially allowing diseases to spread that could eventually reach the U.S.

Long-term:

  • The U.S. would be excluded from the global early warning system for pandemics. American health officials would no longer have automatic access to the WHO's global network for detecting and tracking new pathogens.
  • Without U.S. influence, the rules and standards for global health, including for new vaccines and treatments, may be shaped by other countries, like China or Russia, whose interests may not align with those of the U.S.

Who's Most Affected:

Primary Groups:

  • U.S. Public Health Agencies: The CDC and National Institutes of Health (NIH) will lose a primary channel for global health surveillance and collaboration.
  • Pharmaceutical and Biotech Industries: These sectors will face a different landscape for international regulations and pandemic response coordination.
  • Developing Nations: Countries that rely on WHO-led programs for everything from vaccination campaigns to emergency response will see immediate impacts.

Secondary Groups:

  • The American Public: While the effects are not immediate, the population is more vulnerable in the long term to pandemics due to a weakened global detection and response system.
  • International Travelers and Businesses: A less coordinated global health system could lead to more chaotic and unpredictable travel restrictions during future health emergencies.

Regional Impact: The impact is global, but regions in Africa and Southeast Asia that are hotspots for emerging infectious diseases and heavily reliant on WHO support will be most affected by the funding cut.

Bottom Line: While you won't feel a change tomorrow, this order dismantles a key part of America's 75-year-old strategy for protecting itself from global diseases, leaving the nation more isolated and potentially more vulnerable to the next pandemic.

Where the Parties Stand

Republican Position: "Preserving U.S. Sovereignty"

Core Stance: Generally supportive of withdrawing from the WHO, viewing the organization as flawed, unaccountable, and a threat to American autonomy.

Their Arguments:

  • ✓ The WHO failed in its response to COVID-19 and is unduly influenced by China.
  • ✓ The U.S. provides a disproportionate amount of funding and should redirect that money elsewhere.
  • ✗ Oppose ongoing negotiations for a "pandemic treaty," which they argue would cede American sovereignty over public health decisions to an international body.

Legislative Strategy: Supporting the President's executive action and blocking any attempts by Congress to reverse the withdrawal or restore funding.

Democratic Position: "Strengthening Global Health Security"

Core Stance: Strongly oppose withdrawal, arguing that U.S. membership is essential for protecting American and global health.

Their Arguments:

  • ✓ U.S. leadership within the WHO is critical for global health security and for monitoring and stopping outbreaks before they reach America.
  • ✓ Withdrawing creates a leadership vacuum that China and other adversaries will fill, undermining U.S. interests.
  • ⚠️ While acknowledging the WHO needs reform, they argue it's better to fix it from the inside rather than abandoning it.

Legislative Strategy: Pushing back against the executive order, potentially through legislation or legal challenges, and advocating for restored funding and participation in the organization.

Constitutional Check

The Verdict: ⚠️ Questionable

Basis of Authority:

The President is acting under their broad constitutional authority to conduct foreign affairs. However, the original U.S. entry into the WHO was authorized by a joint resolution of Congress, creating a legal gray area.

Relevant Portion of the 1948 Joint Resolution (Public Law 80-643): "In adopting this joint resolution the Congress does so with the understanding that... the United States reserves its right to withdraw from the Organization on a one-year notice."

Constitutional Implications:

[Legal Principle]: A key debate is over the "mirror principle," which suggests that exiting an international agreement should require the same legislative process as entering it. Since the U.S. joined the WHO via a joint resolution of Congress, some legal scholars argue the President cannot unilaterally withdraw without congressional approval.

[Precedent]: The Supreme Court has never definitively ruled on whether a President can unilaterally withdraw from a treaty or congressional-executive agreement. In Goldwater v. Carter (1979), the Court dismissed a challenge to President Carter's unilateral withdrawal from a defense treaty with Taiwan, but did so on political grounds without settling the constitutional question.

[Federalism]: This action primarily concerns foreign policy, which is a federal power, so it does not directly overstep powers reserved for the states. However, the consequences of a weakened global health response could eventually place significant burdens on state and local health departments.

Potential Legal Challenges:

Legal challenges are considered likely. Lawsuits could be filed arguing that the President lacks the constitutional authority to withdraw from an organization that the U.S. joined by an act of Congress. Challengers might contend that the 1948 resolution's withdrawal clause implies a congressional role in the process and that the President's unilateral action is an unconstitutional overreach.

Your Action Options

TO SUPPORT THIS BILL

5-Minute Actions:

  • Call Your Rep/Senators: Capitol Switchboard: (202) 224-3121 "I'm a constituent from [Your City/Town] and I urge [Rep./Sen. Name] to support Executive Order 14155 and the withdrawal from the World Health Organization."

30-Minute Deep Dive:

  • Write a Detailed Email: Contact your representatives and members of the House Foreign Affairs and Senate Foreign Relations Committees to express support for the policy.
  • Join an Organization: Groups like the Sovereignty Coalition have advocated for leaving the WHO.

TO OPPOSE THIS BILL

5-Minute Actions:

  • Call Your Rep/Senators: [Capitol Switchboard: (202) 224-3121] "I'm a constituent from [Your City/Town] and I urge [Rep./Sen. Name] to oppose Executive Order 14155 and work to keep the U.S. in the World Health Organization."

30-Minute Deep Dive:

  • Write a Letter to the Editor: Submit a letter to your local newspaper explaining the importance of U.S. leadership in global health and the risks of withdrawal.
  • Join an Organization: Advocacy groups like the Better World Campaign and the United Nations Foundation support continued U.S. engagement with the WHO.