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.<\/p>\n
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. \u201cThis is one of the most penny-wise and billion-dollar-foolish moves,\u201d says Michael Osterholm, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota.<\/p>\n
Here\u2019s what to know.<\/p>\n
Is the U.S. officially out of the WHO?<\/p>\n
The WHO\u2019s 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\u2019s notice and met its financial obligations by paying its dues in full.<\/p>\n
The first condition appears to have been met: A year ago, President Donald Trump gave notice<\/a> that the U.S. would withdraw. But the U.S. has not paid its outstanding dues\u2014including from the final year of the Biden Administration. <\/p>\n The WHO\u2019s principal legal officer Steven Solomon said during a press briefing<\/a> on Jan. 13 that the matter will be discussed by the organization\u2019s executive board, which is scheduled to meet in February, and those talks could extend to the General Assembly that meets in May. \u201cWe look forward to member states discussing this,\u201d he said. \u201cBecause these questions of withdrawal\u2014questions of the conditions, the promise, and agreement reached between the U.S. and World Health Assembly [of the WHO]\u2014these are issues reserved for member states, and not issues WHO staff can decide.\u201d<\/p>\n Will the U.S. be prevented from working with the WHO?<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n \u201cWHO has signaled\u2014very intentionally, I think\u2014that they want to continue to work with the U.S.,\u201d says Dr. Judd Walson, chair of international health at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. \u201cThe flag of the United States continues to fly outside the WHO building [in Geneva], and that\u2019s not a mistake. It\u2019s a very intentional signal that they welcome us to re-engage.\u201d<\/p>\n Read More: Bill Gates: I\u2019m Still Optimistic About Global Health<\/a><\/p>\n 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. \u201cThe flu world has always been very close globally,\u201d he says. \u201cI 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?\u201d<\/p>\n Walson sits on a few WHO committees and says he asked his colleagues there whether the U.S. decision changed his ability to participate. \u201cThey said absolutely not\u2014that 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.\u201d<\/p>\n Solomon echoed that intention. \u201cWhile there is an open question when and how withdrawal happens, there is not an open question about what the constitution says about WHO\u2019s overall mission. The constitution sets out the objective for the organization, of health for all people, wherever they live and without discrimination.\u201d<\/p>\n What will change now that the U.S. is no longer a member of the WHO?<\/p>\n 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.\u00a0<\/p>\n One major dataset involves tracking influenza strains as they emerge around the world\u2014an 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\u2019 decisions, and it\u2019s unclear how much access the U.S. will continue to have to this data in advance of the WHO\u2019s recommendation.<\/p>\n \u201cBy 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,\u201d says Dr. Jeanne Marrazzo, CEO of the Infectious Diseases Society of America and former director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. \u201cIt takes the seat at the table away from us. And those tables are where global health decisions are made.\u201d<\/p>\n The effects on U.S. and global health \u201cwill be a slow bleed,\u201d says Walson. \u201cMost Americans will not wake up on Jan. 23 and say, \u2018Look what happened when the U.S. withdrew from WHO.\u2019 But the problem is that the impacts will be difficult to reverse once they happen.\u201d <\/p>\n 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. \u201cEarly detection is a priceless gift in terms of responding. It\u2019s like a forest fire. If the fire is only five acres big, that\u2019s 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.\u201d<\/p>\n That could have implications for how well health officials can respond to those threats. \u201cWe are not going to know when the next concerning outbreak of pneumonia happens, and we won\u2019t be able to prepare with a drug or vaccine or whatever response is appropriate,\u201d says Marrazzo. \u201cWe won\u2019t be able to tell [Americans] who travel abroad about health risks. I\u2019m worried about missing sentinel events because we pulled back.\u201d<\/p>\n Walson, who is currently collaborating with the WHO on projects in Kenya, says \u201cpeople are much more skeptical of the motivations of Americans and American institutions in engaging in global collaboration\u201d than they used to be. \u201cThere is a sense that we have always been a wolf in sheep\u2019s clothing, and have just now revealed that to the world. It\u2019s harder to say that we are going to work together to resolve problems when people feel we continue to have ulterior, self-serving motives.\u201d<\/p>\n