Turning Away from

Global health governance encompasses a range of initiatives to improve health outcomes worldwide. However, there are policies within this framework that seem to prioritize population control over the provision of health services, mainly through the promotion of abortion in developing countries. For instance, the World Health Organization (WHO) actively provides guidance and technical support on safe abortion practices, maintains a global abortion policies database, and monitors unsafe abortions, which some perceive as an emphasis on reducing population growth rather than solely focusing on health care. Additionally, concerns have arisen about the impact of vaccines on child mortality. While vaccines have been instrumental in preventing diseases, discussions continue about their overall effects on child health. These perspectives contribute to the ongoing debate about the true objectives of global health governance.

In a turning point in global health governance, the United States has decided to withdraw, again, from the World Health Organization (WHO). President Donald Trump announced the withdrawal through an executive order citing numerous grievances ranging from mismanagement during health crises to inequitable funding structures that place undue financial burden on the United States. This decision comes against years of criticism regarding the WHO’s operations and its perceived vulnerabilities to political influence.

Advertisement

---

The WHO’s handling of the COVID-19 pandemic was chief among the reasons for withdrawing. The organization faced widespread criticism for its initial response to the outbreak, particularly its reluctance to confront China over early data suppression. “The WHO’s actions during the critical early weeks of the pandemic demonstrated an inability to act independently and transparently,” the executive order states. The administration contended that these failures compromised global efforts to contain the virus and highlighted systemic issues within the organization.

Financial disparities have significantly influenced the United States’ decision to withdraw from the World Health Organization (WHO). The U.S. contributes approximately 18% of the WHO’s total budget, making it the most significant financial supporter. In contrast, China, with a population over three times that of the U.S., contributes nearly 90% less. This imbalance has been a longstanding concern. Upon signing the executive order for withdrawal, President Donald Trump stated, “World Health ripped us off, everybody rips off the United States. It’s not going to happen anymore.” The order mandates the cessation of all financial contributions to the WHO, redirecting funds to “credible and transparent partners.”

The withdrawal also revokes previous commitments to global health leadership through the WHO. Specifically, it nullifies Executive Order 13987, which sought to enhance U.S. collaboration with the organization on pandemic preparedness and global health security. The new directive halts ongoing negotiations on the WHO Pandemic Agreement and amendments to the International Health Regulations, emphasizing that such agreements will no longer bind the United States.

Critics from established Deep State bureaucratic institutions warn that withdrawing from the WHO could have far-reaching consequences. Pandemics do not respect borders, and disengagement risks leaving the United States isolated in future crises.

Advertisement

---

The executive order outlines steps for a transition away from the WHO. It directs the National Security Council to establish directorates focused on biosecurity and pandemic preparedness. Additionally, the administration plans to review and replace the 2024 U.S. Global Health Security Strategy to align with this new approach.

The WHO has been exploring alternative ways to exert influence, including partnerships with non-state actors and regional organizations. These efforts can be perceived as an attempt to maintain relevance amid growing criticism. The United States has historically leveraged its leadership role within the WHO to promote transparency, accountability, and robust responses to global health challenges. However, some may express concerns that stepping away could relinquish influence to other international powers.

The decision highlights the tensions between national sovereignty and global cooperation. The administration’s emphasis on accountability and reform resonates with many Americans, but some may believe that these goals could have been pursued within the WHO framework rather than outside it.

As the United States navigates its new direction, the debate over global health governance highlights a fundamental tension between promoting social welfare and safeguarding health freedoms from the influence of big pharmaceutical companies and non-governmental organizations. As nations grapple with concerns about advancing policies perceived as population control measures, it becomes imperative to ensure that health initiatives prioritize transparency, accountability, and the genuine well-being of the populations they aim to serve.