in the summer In 2020, 15 prominent US public health leaders came together to write an op-ed in The Lancet – one of the world’s leading medical journals – denouncing Donald Trump’s intention to withdraw the US from the World Health Organization, a decision that It was later revoked by the president. Biden before taking effect.
Almost five years later, one of the first steps in Trump’s second term was to restart the process of withdrawing the United States from the World Health Organization. This action is now causing controversy and the threat of legal challenges.
Under Joint Resolution 1948, passed by both houses of parliament, any exit would require the US to give the WHO a year’s notice, but Trump appears intent on withdrawing immediately and doing so. without seeking congressional approval.
“The executive order is announcing an immediate withdrawal from the WHO, and he’s not seeking congressional authorization, and he’s not giving the required one-year notice,” said Lawrence Gustin, a professor of public health law at the Georgetown University Law Center in Washington, D.C. And one of the co-authors of the 2020 Lancet paper. In my opinion, this is reckless and illegal and should be challenged in court.”
Trump has a long history of criticizing the WHO, previously accusing the organization of being “corrupt”, destroying America and “grossly mismanaging and covering up” the spread of Covid-19. The United States has historically been one of the largest funders of the World Health Organization, with some estimates providing one-fifth of the organization’s total budget. Between 2022 and 2023, the United States contributed nearly $1.3 billion to the WHO.
However, Gustin and others are particularly concerned about the effects of a US withdrawal on the country’s ability to manage the ongoing threat of infectious diseases. While the WHO has wide-ranging mandates, from advice on essential medicines to public policy recommendations on everything from tobacco and drug use to road safety, it is certainly problematic when monitoring potentially new diseases. comes, has the greatest effect. Avian influenza and international response coordination.
“Withdrawing from the WHO makes us more isolated, more vulnerable and more fragile in the world,” says Gustin. “You cannot close a border against a pathogen. We need the WHO on the ground to put out the fires before they reach the US. “And we also need WHO’s extensive network to provide us with the information about mutations and viruses that we need to develop life-saving vaccines and medical treatments.”
According to Stan Vermond, chief medical officer of the Global Virus Network and another author of the Lancet article, what happens next depends on the response of other countries and non-governmental organizations such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the World Bank and Gavi. Vaccine Alliance, all of which provide significant funding to the WHO. After Trump cut US aid to the WHO to $680 million in 2020-21, Germany responded by quadrupling its contribution to more than $1 billion. The Danish government also agreed to double its aid and put more emphasis on improving sexual and reproductive health and tackling the rise of non-communicable diseases.
