The Claim

Withdrew the U.S. from the World Health Organization.

The Claim, Unpacked

What is literally being asserted?

That the Trump administration withdrew the United States from the World Health Organization. This is presented as a straightforward accomplishment — a promise made, a promise kept.

What is being implied but not asserted?

That withdrawal from the WHO is a net positive for American health, sovereignty, or fiscal responsibility. By placing it in the “Making America Healthy Again” section, the list implies that leaving the WHO contributes to improving Americans’ health. The brevity of the claim invites the reader to fill in the justification — usually that the WHO is corrupt, wasteful, or politically captured — without requiring the claim to defend any of those positions.

What is conspicuously absent?

What was lost. The United States was the WHO’s largest single funder, contributing approximately 18% of its total budget. Withdrawal means losing a seat at the table where global disease surveillance standards, pandemic preparedness protocols, and international health regulations are set. The claim omits the legal dispute over whether withdrawal was lawful given $260.6 million in unpaid assessed contributions. It omits the WHO’s resulting $2.5 billion budget gap and the elimination of roughly 22% of the organization’s workforce. It omits that the U.S. attempted the same withdrawal in 2020 and Biden reversed it in 2021. It omits the geopolitical consequence: an expanded role for China in global health governance. And it omits the fundamental constitutional question of whether a president can unilaterally withdraw from an international organization that Congress authorized the country to join.

Evidence Assessment

Established Facts

President Trump signed Executive Order 14155 on January 20, 2025, initiating withdrawal from the WHO. The order, signed on Trump’s first day in office, directed the Secretary of State to notify the UN Secretary-General and the WHO of U.S. withdrawal. It ordered an immediate pause on future transfer of U.S. government funds, support, or resources to the WHO, and directed that all U.S. government personnel and contractors working with WHO be recalled and reassigned. It also ended negotiations on the WHO Pandemic Agreement. The order cited the WHO’s “mishandling” of COVID-19, failure to adopt reforms, inability to demonstrate independence from member state political influence, and “unfairly onerous” U.S. financial contributions relative to other nations including China. ¹

The United States formally completed its withdrawal on January 22, 2026, following the required one-year notice period. The 1948 Joint Resolution (P.L. 80-643) authorizing U.S. WHO membership reserved the right to withdraw on one year’s notice. The State Department, HHS, and CDC confirmed the withdrawal’s completion. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. issued a joint statement characterizing the U.S. as “the world’s leading force in protecting public health” and stating the government would pursue global health leadership through bilateral engagements, the private sector, NGOs, and faith-based entities. ²

The U.S. was the WHO’s largest single contributor, providing approximately $958 million in the 2024-2025 biennium. This included assessed contributions (mandatory dues) of approximately $134.58 million per year — 22% of all assessed contributions, the maximum allowed under WHO’s formula. Voluntary contributions averaged $237 million annually from FY2012 to FY2024, reaching as high as $694 million in FY2022. Combined, U.S. funding represented approximately 15.6% of WHO’s total revenue in the 2022-2023 biennium, making it the organization’s largest donor. ³

This is the second time Trump ordered withdrawal from the WHO; the first attempt in 2020 was reversed by Biden in 2021. Trump first initiated WHO withdrawal on July 6, 2020, during his first term, citing the organization’s handling of COVID-19. Because the one-year notice period had not elapsed when Biden took office, Biden reversed the withdrawal on his first day, January 20, 2021. The 2025 executive order explicitly revoked Biden’s 2021 presidential letter that had retracted the prior withdrawal notification. ⁴

The WHO disputes the legality of the withdrawal, citing $260.6 million in unpaid U.S. assessed contributions. The 1948 Joint Resolution conditions withdrawal on the United States meeting “its financial obligations to the Organization… in full for the Organization’s current fiscal year.” The U.S. owes $130.3 million for 2024 (unpaid by the Biden administration) and $130.3 million for 2025. WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus reported to member states that the withdrawal cannot be considered legally complete until these dues are paid. The WHO Constitution itself contains no withdrawal clause; the U.S. right to withdraw exists only through the 1948 Congressional reservation, which makes the payment condition integral. ⁵

Whether the President can unilaterally withdraw from the WHO without Congressional approval remains a contested legal question. Congress authorized U.S. WHO membership through a joint resolution using its Spending Clause power. The Congressional Research Service has noted that “it is an open question whether the president can unilaterally withdraw the U.S. from the WHO or whether congressional approval is needed.” No court has ruled on the matter. Prior presidents withdrew from UNESCO without Congressional action, but no judicial precedent directly governs WHO withdrawal. The 1948 resolution does not specify whether the “right to withdraw” belongs to the president alone or requires joint presidential-Congressional action. ⁶

Strong Inferences

WHO’s operational capacity has been substantially degraded by the loss of U.S. funding. WHO faces a $2.5 billion funding shortfall for 2025-2027, with a $1.9 billion gap for 2026-2027 against a planned $4.2 billion budget — roughly 45% of needed funds. Between January and June 2025, approximately 3,000 positions — 22% of WHO’s workforce — were eliminated. Director-General Tedros described 2025 as “one of the most difficult years” in the organization’s history. The budget cuts have been particularly severe in emergency preparedness, antimicrobial resistance programs, and climate resilience. The WHO’s proposed 2026-2027 budget was cut by over 20%, slightly more than the 18% the U.S. had contributed. ⁷

U.S. withdrawal creates strategic space for China to expand its influence in global health governance. China’s combined WHO contributions of $202 million are modest compared to the former U.S. contribution of $959 million, but Beijing pursues influence through alternative channels. China pledged $500 million at the World Health Assembly in May 2025, committed $50 billion to African development for 2025-2027 (including joint medical centers and 2,000 deployed medical personnel through the Health Silk Road), and has systematically trained citizens for international organization roles — by 2020, 90% of China’s top universities had specialized programs for international organization careers. Analysts note China’s approach prioritizes bilateral, state-to-state health partnerships over multilateral frameworks, potentially reshaping WHO’s governance norms even without matching U.S. funding levels. ⁸

Withdrawal from WHO reduces U.S. access to global disease surveillance systems at a time of ongoing biological threats. The WHO coordinates the International Health Regulations framework, the Global Influenza Surveillance and Response System, and global outbreak reporting through the Disease Outbreak News system. Without membership, the U.S. loses its formal seat in these frameworks. Public health experts have noted that infectious diseases can spread across continents in days, and that reduced access to pooled global surveillance data could slow U.S. detection of outbreaks abroad. The withdrawal coincided with the dismantling of USAID global health programs (83% of programs slated for cuts) and CDC international staffing reductions, compounding the loss of international health intelligence capacity. ⁹

What the Evidence Shows

The factual core of this claim is accurate. The Trump administration did withdraw the United States from the World Health Organization. Executive Order 14155 was signed on January 20, 2025, and the formal withdrawal took effect on January 22, 2026, after the required one-year notice period. This is not in dispute.

What the claim obscures is what withdrawal entails and whether it serves the “Making America Healthy Again” framing under which it appears. The WHO is not merely a bureaucracy that collects dues. It is the institution through which 194 member states coordinate disease surveillance, set international health regulations, respond to pandemics, and run programs addressing polio, measles, tuberculosis, malaria, and antimicrobial resistance. The United States was not simply a passive member; it was the organization’s largest funder and most influential voice. Withdrawal does not eliminate the need for these functions — it forfeits influence over how they are performed.

The legal status of the withdrawal itself is contested. The 1948 Joint Resolution that authorized U.S. membership conditioned withdrawal on full payment of assessed contributions. The U.S. owes $260.6 million in unpaid dues for 2024 and 2025. WHO’s position is that the withdrawal is not legally complete until these obligations are met. The separate question of whether a president can unilaterally withdraw from an organization that Congress authorized the country to join has never been judicially resolved.

The consequences are already visible. WHO has lost 22% of its workforce, faces a $2.5 billion budget gap, and has cut programs in emergency preparedness, antimicrobial resistance, and climate-health resilience. China has moved to fill the leadership vacuum through the Health Silk Road and increased commitments to developing nations, shifting global health governance toward bilateral, Beijing-centered models. The U.S. government has stated it will pursue global health engagement through bilateral channels, the private sector, and faith-based organizations — but has not demonstrated an operational replacement for the multilateral surveillance and coordination infrastructure the WHO provides.

The Bottom Line

Steel-man acknowledgment: The WHO has genuine accountability problems. Its initial COVID-19 response in early 2020 did defer excessively to Chinese government claims. Reform efforts have been slow. The U.S. assessment rate of 22% of mandatory dues, compared to China’s assessed share based on a much larger population, raises legitimate questions about burden-sharing. A sovereign nation has the right to evaluate whether its membership in an international organization serves its interests.

That said, the claim is misleading through omission. Framing WHO withdrawal as “Making America Healthy Again” implies it improves American health outcomes, when the operational consequence is reduced access to the global disease surveillance, pandemic preparedness, and outbreak response infrastructure that protects Americans from foreign-origin health threats. The withdrawal eliminates U.S. influence over an organization that sets health standards affecting American interests worldwide, while creating space for geopolitical competitors to shape those standards instead. It is a sovereignty assertion that carries concrete public health costs — costs the claim neither acknowledges nor addresses.

Footnotes

1. White House, “Withdrawing the United States from the World Health Organization,” January 20, 2025, https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/withdrawing-the-united-states-from-the-worldhealth-organization/ ↩

2. CDC Newsroom, “United States Completes WHO Withdrawal,” January 22, 2026, https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2026/united-states-completes-who-withdrawal.html; State Department Joint Statement by Secretary Rubio and Secretary Kennedy, January 2026. ↩

3. KFF, “The U.S. Government and the World Health Organization,” https://www.kff.org/global-health-policy/the-u-s-government-and-the-world-health-organization/; CRS IN12496, “The World Health Organization (WHO): Background and U.S. Withdrawal.” ↩

4. NPR, “Trump declares U.S. will withdraw from the World Health Organization,” January 20, 2025; Holland & Knight analysis of EO 14155. ↩

5. Health Policy Watch, “Stars and Stripes No Longer Flying at WHO — But US Can’t Really Leave Until Dues Are Paid, Agency Says,” January 2026, https://healthpolicy-watch.news/stars-and-stripes-no-longer-flying-at-who-but-us-cant-really-leave-until-dues-are-paid-agency-says/; Just Security, “The Legal Problem with Trump’s WHO Order,” January 2025, https://www.justsecurity.org/106748/trump-order-world-health-organization/ ↩

6. CRS LSB10489, “Withdrawal from the World Health Organization: Legal Basis and Implications,” https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/LSB10489; CRS IN12496. ↩

7. Health Policy Watch, “WHO Budget Crisis Bigger Than Previously Thought — $2.5 Billion Gap For 2025-2027,” https://healthpolicy-watch.news/who-budget-crisis-bigger-than-previously-thought-2-5-billion-gap-for-2025-2027/; UN News, “Global health systems ‘at risk’ as funding cuts bite, warns WHO,” February 2026. ↩

8. Think Global Health (Council on Foreign Relations), “U.S. WHO Exit Could Expand China’s Influence,” https://www.thinkglobalhealth.org/article/us-who-exit-could-expand-chinas-influence ↩

9. Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, “The Consequences of the U.S.’s Withdrawal from the WHO,” 2025, https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2025/the-consequences-of-the-us-withdrawal-from-the-who; Frontiers in Public Health, “The global implications of U.S. withdrawal from WHO and the USAID shutdown,” 2025. ↩