UNITED STATES — The United States completed its withdrawal from the World Health Organization on January 22, 2026, ending its membership relationship with the U.N. agency and cutting formal ties that had shaped global health coordination for decades.
U.S. officials said the exit terminated U.S. funding and personnel support for the WHO, and pulled back staff who had worked in roles linked to the organization, shifting how Washington coordinates on disease surveillance and emergency response.
The departure, finalized in January 2026 after a required notice period, makes the United States the first country to leave the WHO since the organization’s founding in 1948.
The withdrawal began when President Donald Trump signed an executive order on January 20, 2025 directing the United States to leave the WHO, triggering a one-year notice period before the separation took effect in January 2026.
Administration statements framing the move pointed to criticisms of the WHO’s COVID-19 response, concerns about governance, and claims of political influence inside the organization.
A notice period, in practice, sets a defined window between the formal start of the exit process and the point when membership ends, allowing time for administrative steps and changes to relationships, funding channels, and staffing arrangements.
In a joint statement from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of State, officials indicated that all U.S. funding and personnel support for the WHO has been terminated, and that personnel previously working with the organization have been withdrawn.
The Trump administration cited the WHO’s handling of the COVID-19 pandemic as the primary justification, claiming the organization delayed declaring COVID-19 a global health emergency and unfairly criticized U.S. actions such as travel restrictions.
Officials also pointed to the agency’s “failure to adopt urgently needed reforms” and its “inability to demonstrate independence from the inappropriate political influence of WHO member states.”
The administration framed the departure as a shift away from WHO-centered multilateral coordination and toward other ways of engaging internationally on health threats.
Money and outstanding dues have remained a central issue. The United States served as the WHO’s largest historical funder, and its contributions supported a wide range of programs tied to surveillance, emergency response readiness and technical assistance.
Reports suggest the U.S. has not fully settled its outstanding dues for the years 2024 and 2025, totaling approximately $260 million, while WHO officials put the unpaid obligations at approximately $260-$278 million.
The State Department said “the United States will not be making any payments to the WHO before our withdrawal,” arguing the U.S. has no statutory obligation to settle debts prior to exit.
“the United States will not be making any payments to the WHO before our withdrawal,”
WHO bylaws require nations to pay all outstanding dues before withdrawal is complete, and WHO principal legal officer Steven Solomon indicated the matter will be discussed by the organization’s executive board in February and potentially the General Assembly in May.
The WHO has described the U.S. share of its financing as large enough to affect program continuity. It has historically relied on U.S. funding for a sizeable portion of its overall operations.
The United States has historically been the WHO’s largest funder, providing approximately 20 percent of the organization’s $3.4 billion annual budget. A separate estimate put the U.S. at 18 percent of its global budget.
WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said the organization now has only 75 percent of its needed budget covered, with 25 percent remaining to be raised.
The loss of U.S. funding has compelled the WHO to implement budgetary cuts, scale back operations, and reduce staff, generating concern about the organization’s capacity to fulfill its core mission.
WHO described concrete near-term adjustments. It reduced its budget by 9 percent for the upcoming two years, laid off staff and reorganized departments.
Public health experts and global health authorities criticized the U.S. withdrawal, arguing it risks weakening the central coordinating role the WHO plays in epidemic and pandemic preparedness, vaccination initiatives, disease surveillance and international public health cooperation.
Dr. Ronald Nahass, president of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, called the withdrawal “shortsighted and misguided” and “scientifically reckless,” warning the U.S. will no longer participate in the Global Influenza Surveillance and Response System.
That platform monitors flu cases and supports sharing viral samples used to develop yearly flu vaccines, a function experts describe as time-sensitive because influenza strains evolve and require continual monitoring.
Lawrence Gostin, a public health law expert at Georgetown University, said the withdrawal will “hobble the ability of U.S. scientists and pharmaceutical companies to develop vaccines and medicines against new threats” and will hurt global responses to new outbreaks.
Dr. Judd Walson, chair of international health at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, said the U.S. will lose access to early warning data from other countries that could alert America to emerging pandemics.
Some experts also focused on how the break in formal relationships could change the speed and depth of data-sharing and technical guidance alignment during fast-moving outbreaks, including access to influenza strain information used in vaccine development.
Others pointed to potential workarounds, arguing the United States can pursue alternative coordination channels beyond formal WHO membership, though the withdrawal still changes how official collaboration occurs.
At the state level, California announced plans to join the WHO’s Global Outbreak Alert & Response Network (GOARN), becoming the first U.S. state to participate in the international health cooperative framework despite the national withdrawal.
California’s move drew attention because it signaled a subnational effort to maintain international technical coordination, even as the federal government ended formal membership in the World Health Organization.
States and local health systems can seek international links for practical reasons during outbreaks, including information sharing, response coordination, and access to training and technical support networks that operate across borders.
The broader public health implications extend beyond influenza. The formal exit raises questions about how the United States will coordinate on threats that cross international borders, including infectious diseases, pandemics and outbreaks of emerging pathogens.
Critics argue continued global collaboration through the WHO remains essential to safeguarding both U.S. and international public health, given the organization’s role as a hub for surveillance signals, guidance and coordination across many countries.
Proponents of the withdrawal contend the U.S. will pursue alternative mechanisms such as bilateral agreements, NGO partnerships and direct country engagements to sustain global health work outside the WHO.
Even with alternative channels, the U.S. withdrawal changes the terms of engagement for U.S. government agencies and the practical pathways for coordinated responses with the WHO during emergencies.
Administration officials also acknowledged unresolved issues, including the loss of access to data from other countries that could provide early warning of new pandemics, reflecting concerns raised by experts about outbreak intelligence.
WHO leadership signaled openness to future U.S. re-engagement, keeping the door open for a return to the organization’s structures and networks.
The U.S. flag continues to fly outside the WHO building in Geneva as “a very intentional signal that they welcome us to re-engage,” Walson said.
“a very intentional signal that they welcome us to re-engage,”
Another pathway discussed by stakeholders centers on WHO leadership. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus‘ term ends in 2027, and the WHO’s 193 member states will elect his successor in May 2027.
The Trump administration has indicated it wants the global health body to be led by an American director-general and inspector general, according to Larry Gostin, a global health law professor at Georgetown University’s O’Neill Institute.
Candidates expected to include Hanan Balky, a Saudi Arabian doctor leading the WHO’s eastern Mediterranean branch, and Hans Kluge, a Belgian doctor heading the WHO’s Europe branch, were cited in discussions about the 2027 transition.
For now, the operational meaning of the January 2026 withdrawal remains the end of formal membership, with the United States outside WHO decision-making and without the same structured access points used for coordination, even as officials and experts debate how alternative channels will function in practice.
U.S. Completes World Health Organization Withdrawal January 2026 Exit
The United States finalized its exit from the World Health Organization in January 2026, cutting decades-long ties and significant financial backing. Sparked by criticisms of the agency’s pandemic response and governance, the move leaves the WHO with a 25% budget deficit. While the U.S. shifts toward bilateral health agreements, experts caution that losing formal WHO-centered coordination could delay responses to emerging global pathogens and seasonal influenza.
