Yale experts weigh in on U.S. WHO exit
The World Health Organization isn’t perfect — but quitting it isn’t the solution, according to Yale experts.

Ximena Solorzano, Staff Photographer
The WHO isn’t perfect — but quitting it isn’t the solution, according to Yale experts.
On Jan. 20, President Donald Trump decided to withdraw the United States from the World Health Organization. The Trump administration has cited inefficiencies and undue political influence as motives for the withdrawal.
As one of the largest financial contributors to the WHO, the United States has played a pivotal role in shaping global health initiatives. The News spoke with Yale experts who weighed in on what this means for international disease surveillance, the United States’ role in global health diplomacy, and whether the move is a necessary push for reform or a destabilizing mistake that could jeopardize global health security.
“It would be a big mistake to withdraw, but it would not necessarily be a big mistake for a president to signal willingness to withdraw if reforms are not made,” said Dr. Howard Forman, a Yale professor specializing in health policy and management.
The WHO, established in 1948, is an agency within the United Nations, bringing together 194 member states to collaborate on global health initiatives. Its primary responsibilities include setting international health standards, coordinating responses to public health emergencies and providing technical assistance to countries in need. It has played a role in combating infectious diseases such as smallpox, polio and Ebola. Additionally, it tackles issues like mental health and maternal and child healthcare.
The WHO has been criticized for its slow response times to crises and its susceptibility to political influence. Despite its shortcomings, it plays a role in ensuring global health security, particularly for developing nations that depend on its resources, expertise and funding to address health challenges.
Melissa Barber, a lecturer at the School of Public Health, emphasized its impact for global health in low-income nations.
“WHO serves a vital role in detecting and preventing epidemics, assessing evidence, and generating treatment guidelines,” Barber wrote. “Should funding gaps not be bridged, WHO—an already underfunded institution—will likely have to close or reduce the scope of many programs.”
According to Barber, despite the WHO’s faults, the risks of an abrupt withdrawal are undeniable. The U.S. has historically played a leading role in disease surveillance, contributing to early detection systems that protect both domestic and global populations. Without U.S. funding and participation, WHO initiatives — many of which directly benefit American public health — may falter.
Xi Chen, an associate professor at the School of Public Health, cautioned that U.S. withdrawal could “enlarge the risk of public health crises” by limiting the flow of critical health information.
“The U.S. has played a long-standing role in responding to outbreaks worldwide. Without WHO collaboration, not only will public health risks increase, but international efforts to combat pandemics will also be weakened,” he said.
A major driver of the withdrawal was criticism of the WHO’s handling of COVID-19. The Trump administration accused the organization of failing to hold China accountable in the early days of the pandemic.
According to Forman, the Trump administration has also cited concerns about China’s lack of transparency regarding COVID-19. The administration claims that the WHO has refrained from investigating China’s handling of the COVID-19 pandemic in order to maintain diplomatic relations with China.
Despite these missteps, Forman said, “It’s unquestionably bad for us to not be part of the WHO.”
Beyond immediate public health consequences, withdrawal also raises diplomatic and economic concerns. According to the WHO’s agreement with the United States during its founding, a country intending to leave must provide a one-year notice while continuing to participate and meet financial commitments during that period. This ensures a smoother transition without jeopardizing ongoing programs.
However, the administration’s decision to withdraw immediately bypassed this agreement, creating uncertainty in global health cooperation and raising concerns about the reliability of U.S. commitments to international agreements.
Barber remains skeptical of the administration’s approach, arguing that true reform is achieved through engagement rather than abandonment.
“Real change—whether in funding, governance, or accountability—emerges from collaboration, not coercion and chaos,” Barber wrote in an email to the News.
The economic fallout could also be significant. Pharmaceutical companies and research institutions rely on WHO guidance for regulatory approvals and drug development. Chen warned that a lack of timely regulatory updates could introduce uncertainty into the pharmaceutical sector, affecting vaccine production and global health security.
While nearly all experts the News spoke to agree that the WHO needs meaningful reform, they also argue that a hasty withdrawal is not the answer. With the WHO playing a crucial role in pandemic preparedness and global health diplomacy, the decision to leave abruptly may have lasting repercussions for international cooperation and America’s standing in the global health arena.
The WHO was established on April 7, 1948.