Supporters of the United States’ decision to leave the World Health Organization (WHO), which was formally initiated in January 2025 and completed in January 2026, cite several strategic, financial, and political benefits:
- Financial Savings: Proponents argue that the U.S. carried a disproportionate share of the WHO’s financial burden. Withdrawing allows for the redirection of hundreds of millions of dollarspreviously paid in mandatory dues and voluntary contributionstoward domestic health initiatives or direct bilateral partnerships.
- National Sovereignty and Autonomy: Leaving the WHO grants the U.S. greater independence in defining its own public health policies without the need to align with international guidelines that may not reflect its specific national priorities. This includes avoiding potential future obligations from international agreements like the Pandemic Agreement.
- Increased Accountability: The move is framed as a rejection of perceived mismanagement, lack of transparency, and the WHO’s failure to implement urgent reforms following its response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
- Independence from Political Influence: Advocates claim that the WHO has been susceptible to “inappropriate political influence” from other member states, specifically China. Withdrawing allows the U.S. to engage in “targeted global cooperation” directly with allies rather than through a multilateral organization they view as compromised.
- Competitive Global Leadership Model: Some argue that acting independently allows the U.S. to set its own benchmarks for health innovation and medical research, potentially creating a model that other nations may choose to follow outside of the WHO’s framework.
- Catalyst for Reform: Some scholars suggest that the withdrawal of its largest funder could act as a “wake-up call,” forcing the WHO to undergo significant structural reforms to address its documented inefficiencies and funding models.