In the summer In 2020, 15 recognized leaders in public health in the United States convened the author article In The Lancet – one of the world’s most prominent medical journals – she denounced Donald Trump’s intention to withdraw the United States from the World Health Organization, a decision that President Biden later reversed before it could take effect.
Nearly five years later, one of the opening salvos of Trump’s second term was: Start the withdrawal process again United States from the World Health Organization. The move is already sparking controversy and the threat of legal challenges.
According to A 1948 Joint Resolution After being passed by both houses of Congress, any such withdrawal would require the United States to provide one year’s notice to the World Health Organization, but Trump’s intentions appear to be to withdraw immediately and to do so without obtaining congressional approval.
“The executive order announces immediate withdrawal from the WHO, does not seek authorization from Congress, nor does it provide the required one-year notice,” says Lawrence Gostin, a professor of public health law at Georgetown University Law Center in Washington, D.C. And one of the co-authors of the 2020 Lancet article. “In my view, this is reckless and unlawful, and should be challenged in court.”
Trump has a long history of criticizing the World Health Organization, having previously accused the organization of being “corrupt,” tearing America apart, and of “severe mismanagement and cover-up” of the spread of COVID-19. The United States has historically been one of the WHO’s largest funders, with some estimates providing a fifth of the organization’s entire budget. Between 2022 and 2023, the United States provided aid to the World Health Organization Nearly $1.3 billion.
However, Gostin and others are particularly concerned about the effects of a US withdrawal on the country’s ability to manage the continuing threat of infectious diseases. While the WHO has a far-reaching remit, ranging from providing advice on essential medicines to policy recommendations on everything from tobacco and drug use to road safety, it is arguably its most influential when it comes to monitoring new diseases that may Cause problems, such as bird flu, and coordinate the international response.
“Withdrawing from the WHO makes us more lonely, more vulnerable, and more vulnerable in the world,” says Justin. “You can’t close borders to pathogens. We need WHO’s presence on the ground to put out fires before they reach the United States. We also need WHO’s vast network to provide us with the information about mutations and viruses that we need to develop life-saving vaccines and medical treatments.
According to Sten Vermund, chief medical officer at the Global Virus Network and another co-author of The Lancet article, what happens next depends on the responses of other countries and NGOs such as the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the World Bank, and Gavi. The Vaccine Alliance, which provides the WHO with significant funding. After Trump reduced US contributions to the World Health Organization to $680 million in 2020-2021, Germany He responded By quadrupling its contributions to more than $1 billion. Danish government Also agreed To double its contributions, with a strong focus on improving sexual and reproductive health and addressing the rise of non-communicable diseases.