The decision by former President Trump to extricate the United States from the World Health Organization (WHO) was primarily driven by the organization's perceived mishandling and pro-China bias during the COVID-19 pandemic.
This move was backed by numerous Congress members, who raised concerns about the WHO's questionable effectiveness, its heavy financial reliance on the U.S., and potential threats to national sovereignty.
According to Gateway Pundit, critics have warned that this decision could have a devastating impact on global health. As the largest donor to the WHO, contributing approximately 16% of its funding, the U.S. plays a pivotal role in the organization's capacity to respond to health emergencies. Critics argue that the U.S. withdrawal could cripple the WHO, surrender leadership to China, and isolate the U.S. from crucial global health initiatives.
However, these concerns overlook a broader point: many advocates of the withdrawal believe the WHO is ineffective and undeserving of continued U.S. support. They argue that the U.S. health system would not be adversely affected by leaving, as the WHO has no authority within the United States, nor is the U.S. dependent on it for health guidance. The potential impact on the WHO's operations is irrelevant to those who distrust the organization and see little value in funding it.
Advocates for withdrawal also highlight that if Europe or China deem the WHO necessary and effective, nothing prevents them from stepping up to fill the funding gap. They challenge the argument that a U.S. withdrawal would create an opportunity for increased Chinese influence over the WHO, pointing out that one reason for pulling out is precisely because China already wields too much influence within the organization.
President Trump criticized the WHO for its lack of transparency during the COVID-19 pandemic and for delaying the acknowledgment of human-to-human transmission, despite emerging evidence. He also accused the organization of being overly influenced by China, citing its initial praise of China's response and its limited engagement with Taiwan, which had raised early warnings about the virus.
Another contentious issue was the WHO's opposition to early travel restrictions, including those implemented by the U.S., though the organization denies explicitly criticizing these measures. The WHO defended its actions, claiming it acted promptly with the information available and maintained open communication with China to gather crucial data.
Critics of withdrawal warn that it could undermine global health coordination, disrupting collaborations on issues like influenza vaccine design, epidemic preparedness, and global vaccine trials. They argue this could leave the U.S. vulnerable to future outbreaks. Supporters, however, see the so-called coordinated response to COVID-19 as a cautionary tale, pointing to the devastation it caused to the global economy and the immense suffering it inflicted on billions.
Sovereignty concerns are a significant reason why Trump, members of Congress, and many in the public support withdrawing from the WHO. They fear that international organizations like the WHO could influence or override national health policies, prompting some lawmakers to push for withdrawal to ensure that domestic health decisions remain under U.S. control.
Supporters of the WHO argue that these sovereignty fears are unwarranted. However, The Lancet acknowledges one of the WHOs limitations: its limited authority to ensure state compliance with the International Health Regulations (IHR), including constrained ability to independently verify official state reports. This lack of enforcement authority, which supporters cite as a weakness, is precisely why opponents in the U.S. reject any expansion of the WHOs powers on American soil.
The U.S. is legally bound to comply with the International Health Regulations (IHR), a framework established in 2005 to govern how countries respond to cross-border public health events and emergencies. The IHR outline nations obligations, such as reporting significant public health events and determining whether an event qualifies as a public health emergency of international concern (PHEIC).
Donald Trumps concerns about the WHO are well-founded, and his decision to withdraw the U.S. from the organization will resonate with many Americans. Opponents of withdrawal have yet to present a compelling argument that proves remaining in the WHO is in the best interest of the United States. Withdrawal would be another example of putting America first, allowing the rest of the world to fund and participate in the transnational globalism they choosewithout relying on U.S. support.
Login