President Donald Trump has officially withdrawn the United States from the World Health Organization (WHO). The move is more than a symbolic political gesture—it is a dangerous wager that puts American lives at risk. In public health, risk has a habit of compounding quietly, long before anyone realizes it is too late.

I have worked at the intersection of clinical care, public health, and humanitarian response, including in settings where global coordination made the difference between containing an outbreak and watching it spiral out of control. In those environments, sharing information about emerging diseases is not theoretical. It is a practical tool that determines how quickly threats are recognized and whether lives are protected or lost.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

Viruses do not respect borders. Drug-resistant bacteria do not wait for diplomatic alignment. The idea that a nation can insulate itself from global health threats by disengaging from global coordination misunderstands how disease spreads and how prevention works. For decades, U.S. participation in the WHO served a practical purpose: early warning, shared surveillance, and coordinated response. Our participation was never about charity. It was about self-protection. Leaving weakens that shield.

The WHO also plays a concrete role in supporting U.S. economic interests. By helping create a more stable global health environment, it reduces the risk of disruptions that ripple through trade and supply chains. Its prequalification and standard-setting processes help American medical innovations reach global markets more efficiently, while coordinated procurement drives demand for U.S. health products abroad. Continued U.S. engagement helps ensure that global health standards reflect scientific rigor and transparency, allowing American companies to remain competitive and credible. These investments are tangible. They translate into jobs, economic stability, and a healthier global workforce that supports long-term growth at home.

Global health security is not something nations can opt into selectively. Surveillance systems only work when countries both contribute data and remain embedded in the institutions that interpret and act on it. Influence, access, and early warning are not automatic. They are the product of sustained engagement. When the United States steps away, it forfeits visibility, leverage, and the ability to shape how global health threats are identified and addressed.

To be sure, the WHO, like any organization, is far from perfect. Its failures during COVID-19 are well-documented and deserve scrutiny. But disengagement is not reform. Walking away does not fix what is broken. It leaves the system intact while surrendering one of the few positions capable of driving meaningful change. For decades, the United States used its seat at the table to push standards, demand transparency, and shape global response. Outside the system, that influence simply vanishes.

The consequences are not theoretical. A weaker WHO means slower outbreak detection, fragmented data, and less coordinated responses to threats such as influenza evolution, antimicrobial resistance, and the next novel pathogen we have not yet named. These pressures are already testing domestic health systems nationwide. The assumption that the United States can replace these functions on its own ignores the basic reality that no nation can generate global surveillance, verification, and coordinated early warning in isolation. Attempting to do so would not create resilience. It would create the very gaps and blind spots pathogens exploit first.

Unlike the President’s antagonistic view of the world, public health is not competitive. It is collaborative and collective. Stronger systems abroad make people safer at home. Disease surveillance in one region improves preparedness everywhere. Shared standards reduce chaos when emergencies strike. The WHO, flawed as it is, exists to hold those functions together.

What is often overlooked is who pays first. When global coordination erodes, the earliest impacts fall on populations with the least resilience, including children who miss vaccinations, communities without surveillance infrastructure, and health systems stretched beyond capacity. These early failures are not only humanitarian losses. They are the very risks decades of U.S. investment in global health were designed to prevent. Those failures do not remain contained. They spill outward, crossing borders and timelines until they become everyone’s problem, including ours.

The painful irony is this: the WHO has saved millions of lives. For decades, investments in global health have delivered some of the highest returns of any public spending by preventing crises from reaching U.S. shores or reducing their severity when they do. That return does not disappear when funding is withdrawn. The protection does.

Public health failures rarely announce themselves in advance. They emerge slowly and invisibly, until early warning is lost and the only remaining signal is crisis. Leaving the World Health Organization increases the odds that the next failure will arrive sooner, spread faster, and cost more lives than it should.

That is a risk the country does not need to accept, especially when the costs of getting it wrong are so high.

The U.S. was one of the first countries to join the World Health Organization (WHO) when it was created in 1948 as part of the United Nations. But on Jan. 22, 2026, it officially withdrew from the global health group.

The U.S. has historically been the largest funder to the WHO, through both its assessed and voluntary contributions, so the departure is poised to disrupt both global and domestic health. “This is one of the most penny-wise and billion-dollar-foolish moves,” says Michael Osterholm, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

Here’s what to know.

Is the U.S. officially out of the WHO?

The WHO’s charter does not contain a clause allowing member states to withdraw. But in agreeing to join decades ago, the U.S. Congress included an option to leave the organization as long as the U.S. gave a year’s notice and met its financial obligations by paying its dues in full.

The first condition appears to have been met: A year ago, President Donald Trump gave notice that the U.S. would withdraw. But the U.S. has not paid its outstanding dues—including from the final year of the Biden Administration.

The WHO’s principal legal officer Steven Solomon said during a press briefing on Jan. 13 that the matter will be discussed by the organization’s executive board, which is scheduled to meet in February, and those talks could extend to the General Assembly that meets in May. “We look forward to member states discussing this,” he said. “Because these questions of withdrawal—questions of the conditions, the promise, and agreement reached between the U.S. and World Health Assembly [of the WHO]—these are issues reserved for member states, and not issues WHO staff can decide.”

Will the U.S. be prevented from working with the WHO?

Dr. Tedros Ghebreysus, WHO Director-General, has said he is open to accepting the U.S. back as a member and hopes it will reconsider the decision to withdraw.

“WHO has signaled—very intentionally, I think—that they want to continue to work with the U.S.,” says Dr. Judd Walson, chair of international health at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. “The flag of the United States continues to fly outside the WHO building [in Geneva], and that’s not a mistake. It’s a very intentional signal that they welcome us to re-engage.”

Read More: Bill Gates: I’m Still Optimistic About Global Health

Osterholm says researchers will likely continue to stay in touch with their global-health colleagues, but on an individual level that lacks the coordination and clout of federal-level participation. The yearly update of the flu vaccine is a good example. “The flu world has always been very close globally,” he says. “I am quite convinced that there will be unofficial information-sharing among this group. The question is, at what point does that information have to be official in order for companies to take action deciding which vaccine strains they are going to use?”

Walson sits on a few WHO committees and says he asked his colleagues there whether the U.S. decision changed his ability to participate. “They said absolutely not—that as a U.S. citizen, I still have the capacity to participate in the workings of the WHO. And there are scientists and technical experts engaging to continue to maintain our access [to the WHO] at the individual level. Clearly we have lost the coordination of all of these activities, but we will still have some engagement.”

Solomon echoed that intention. “While there is an open question when and how withdrawal happens, there is not an open question about what the constitution says about WHO’s overall mission. The constitution sets out the objective for the organization, of health for all people, wherever they live and without discrimination.”

What will change now that the U.S. is no longer a member of the WHO?

One of the first things that could change for U.S. scientists is their access to databases that are important for monitoring infectious diseases like influenza, as well as emerging threats that could affect the health of Americans, such as COVID. While many of these data sources are public, and U.S. scientists will continue to access them, they might not have as much insight into how the raw data were collected and processed, says Walson. That could be important for understanding how to interpret the information and for getting a head start on potentially dangerous outbreaks of new infectious diseases. 

One major dataset involves tracking influenza strains as they emerge around the world—an important tool for determining which strains of the virus are dominating in a particular year, and therefore which strains vaccine makers should target in the annual flu shot. The WHO makes public recommendations each year to guide manufacturers’ decisions, and it’s unclear how much access the U.S. will continue to have to this data in advance of the WHO’s recommendation.

“By pulling out, we are not just losing our ability to provide data, but also to contribute to the dialogue and make sure we have a say in understanding why the flu vaccine is being composed in the way it is every year,” says Dr. Jeanne Marrazzo, CEO of the Infectious Diseases Society of America and former director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. “It takes the seat at the table away from us. And those tables are where global health decisions are made.”

The effects on U.S. and global health “will be a slow bleed,” says Walson. “Most Americans will not wake up on Jan. 23 and say, ‘Look what happened when the U.S. withdrew from WHO.’ But the problem is that the impacts will be difficult to reverse once they happen.”

That includes being less aware of emerging disease threats, which could become worse if the U.S. is unprepared for them. Early detection is critical for avoiding large-scale outbreaks and avoiding disease and deaths, says Osterholm. “Early detection is a priceless gift in terms of responding. It’s like a forest fire. If the fire is only five acres big, that’s different from responding to a fire that is 5,000 acres big. Unfortunately, we may now find ourselves in the 5,000-acre scenario when it comes to disease outbreaks.”

That could have implications for how well health officials can respond to those threats. “We are not going to know when the next concerning outbreak of pneumonia happens, and we won’t be able to prepare with a drug or vaccine or whatever response is appropriate,” says Marrazzo. “We won’t be able to tell [Americans] who travel abroad about health risks. I’m worried about missing sentinel events because we pulled back.”

Walson, who is currently collaborating with the WHO on projects in Kenya, says “people are much more skeptical of the motivations of Americans and American institutions in engaging in global collaboration” than they used to be. “There is a sense that we have always been a wolf in sheep’s clothing, and have just now revealed that to the world. It’s harder to say that we are going to work together to resolve problems when people feel we continue to have ulterior, self-serving motives.”

Read More: How a Tiny Worm Helped Unlock the Biology of Aging

The withdrawal of the U.S. from the global health community also has important geopolitical implications. While the WHO’s policies are determined by consensus by all member states, the absence of the U.S. now creates room for other countries to exert more influence, which could affect global health priorities. “Countries like India, Saudi Arabia, Russia, and China are stepping in to make up some of the void left by the U.S.,” Walson says. “That has consequences for who is setting priorities and who has influence in the halls of WHO to guide policy and guidelines.”

Even more damaging than the immediate effects on specific health programs, he says, is the broader economic and political impact of weakening global health programs. Since the U.S. has been the largest funder of the WHO, the withdrawal has forced Ghebreyesus to revise the budget and rely less heavily on dominant donors, which he told TIME in 2025 he had already begun doing before Trump’s decision to withdraw. He said at the Jan. 13 briefing that while the organization now has 75% off its needed budget covered, 25% remains to be raised.

Still, the restricted budget potentially means fewer resources to support the health of low- and middle-income countries, which rely on the WHO for financial support and guidance on health policies and recommendations. “A lot of countries rely on technical expertise from WHO, and as the work force shrinks, that becomes less available,” says Walson. “As countries experience worse health—more mortality and morbidity—economic conditions worsen as sick populations can’t work, and the economic situation of already poor countries deteriorates further. Political instability follows, with mass migration, war, and conflict, and now things start spilling over borders.”

Those countries aren’t the only ones that are likely to suffer, he says. “The degradation of political systems as a result of worsening health will have consequences for U.S. health, as that will further the spread of disease.”

What’s more, Walson says, the economies of developed nations like the U.S. depend on the strength and stability of the developing world, which makes up the market that sustains these economies. “When we are no longer supporting them to help them grow, we are constraining our own markets,” he says. That recognition of the need for a multi-lateral approach to global health was the impetus behind creating the WHO in the first place, based on the reality that countries interact and depend on one another—and the health of one affects the health of all.

“Withdrawal from the WHO is a lose for the United States, and also a lose for the rest of the world,” said Ghebreyesus at the briefing. “It also makes the U.S. unsafe and the rest of the world unsafe. It’s not really the right decision.”

Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death for men and women in the United States—even as public health campaigns have increased awareness and scientific advancements have improved prevention and treatment capabilities

As a practicing cardiologist, I witness how our healthcare system treats patients. We spend time in meetings and appointments, prescribe medications, offer procedures and devices. And yet, too often, we fail to address the true foundation of health: psychological wellbeing.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

When the base of psychological wellbeing is not strong, everything we offer to our patients cannot work effectively. When a patient can’t show up to a check-up, commit to taking a pill every day, or summon the energy to make lifestyle changes, they don’t get better. And you have to feel a certain way to manage all those tasks.

The way we treat patients is wrong.

It has become clear to me that there is something important missing in healthcare. We are in desperate need of a system that unites psychology and clinical medicine. For too long we have lived in a world where psychological research, healthcare system management, and medical tools have been separated from the education, practice, and treatment plans of clinical medicine. However, research consistently shows that psychological wellbeing is intricately intertwined with physical health. Optimizing mental health translates into better prevention, adherence, and health outcomes after major medical events or diagnoses. To truly help our patients, it is imperative that we assess and discuss psychological wellbeing and focus on ways to educate our patients on how to improve it. Connecting our patients to psychologists and reinforcing the validity of the mind-body connection should be a standard part of medical practice.

While there are many components to mental health and wellbeing, there is one that I believe holds tremendous value: Resilience. Resilience is what makes us continue to put one foot in front of the other and flourish even after facing hardship. Resilience is what helps us show up to a check-up, commit to taking a pill, and summon the energy to make lifestyle changes, and more. It is what helps us get better.

Life is full of innumerable and constant challenges. At some point we all encounter an unforeseen traumatic event, whether that is a financial crisis, natural disaster, divorce, or a new medical diagnosis. Each time we face a challenge, the body reacts with a stress response. Both acute and chronic stress are damaging to the body in a myriad of ways. But learning to elicit a resilient response, instead, can transform the negative effects of stress and allow someone to evolve in a healthier way.

But first, we must prioritize resilience in our healthcare system. Those of us within the sector must begin to recognize that a medical diagnosis or event is a form of trauma, and for many patients it paralyzes them. The words I hear so often from my patients after they have received a coronary artery stent, a new heart valve, or learned they have some form of cardiovascular disease is “When am I going to feel like myself again?” I see in their eyes a sense of despair, as their world has been turned upside down. Cultivating resilience in these moments, and afterwards, can have a major impact on a person’s ability to recover.

I want people to know that most of us are innately resilient, and we all have the capacity to build up our resilience with some basic tools. There’s science behind resilience.

Imagine a world in which we incorporate resilience education into how we care for patients and promote recovery from and prevention of disease. The healthcare industry needs to explore ways to support our patients in this regard, and one way would be the creation of resilience training programs at hospitals and clinics. The management of a patient’s condition could also involve handing them a prescription to enroll in these programs. Medical schools could begin to teach about the interaction of the mind and body so that doctors in training learn to see patients in a more holistic way. Children can be taught resilience tools, so it becomes ingrained into the framework of how they approach and handle difficulties and sets them up for success as adults if they receive a new medical diagnosis. Prescribing resilience can help people find a path forward, heal physically and mentally, and experience meaning and joy as they do.

Resilience is a light that helps us find the path out of the darkness and allows us to thrive after whatever life throws our way. Resilience is medicine. And it must be part of our approach to health.