 marks a defining moment in){kind=link}
By Dr. Musa Abdullahi Sufi
The decision by the United States of America to notify its withdrawal from the World Health Organization (WHO) marks a defining moment in global health governance—one with profound implications not only for international cooperation, but for the safety, preparedness, and resilience of nations worldwide.
As a founding member of WHO, the United States has historically played a pivotal role in shaping some of the most significant public health victories of the modern era. From the eradication of smallpox to sustained progress against polio, HIV, Ebola, tuberculosis, malaria, and neglected tropical diseases, U.S. engagement has been instrumental. Its scientific leadership, financial contributions, and global influence have long strengthened the collective capacity to prevent, detect, and respond to health threats that know no borders.
It is against this backdrop that WHO has formally expressed regret over the notification of U.S. withdrawal—describing it as a decision that makes both the United States and the world less safe. The matter is now slated for consideration at the WHO Executive Board meeting beginning 2 February 2026, and subsequently at the World Health Assembly in May 2026, underscoring the seriousness of the moment and its far-reaching consequences.
Addressing the Claims: WHO and the COVID-19 Response
Central to the U.S. justification for withdrawal are allegations that WHO failed during the COVID-19 pandemic, including claims of obstructed information sharing and compromised independence. WHO has categorically rejected these assertions, stating that while no institution or government navigated the pandemic perfectly, its actions were timely, transparent, and grounded in the best available scientific evidence.
From the earliest alerts of a cluster of pneumonia cases of unknown cause in Wuhan on 31 December 2019, WHO activated its emergency systems and requested detailed information from China. By 11 January 2020—when the first COVID-19 related death was reported—WHO had already alerted the global community, convened international experts, and issued technical guidance to help countries protect lives and health systems.
Crucially, when the WHO Director-General declared COVID-19 a Public Health Emergency of International Concern on 30 January 2020—the highest alarm under international health law—there were fewer than 100 cases and no reported deaths outside China. Throughout the early stages, WHO repeatedly warned governments that “the window of opportunity is closing,” describing the virus as “public enemy number one” and urging immediate action.
WHO has also clarified a frequently misunderstood aspect of its guidance: it recommended tools such as masks, vaccines, and physical distancing, but never imposed or advocated for mandates or lockdowns. Decisions on implementation were left to sovereign governments, reflecting WHO’s advisory—not coercive—mandate.
Reform, Learning, and Strengthened Preparedness
In response to independent reviews of the global COVID-19 response, including assessments of its own performance, WHO has undertaken reforms to strengthen surveillance, emergency preparedness, and rapid response systems. These systems now operate continuously and contribute to global health security—including for countries that have voiced criticism.
Beyond the pandemic, WHO firmly rejects claims that it operates a politicized agenda driven by interests hostile to any nation. As a specialized agency of the United Nations governed by 194 Member States, WHO maintains that its legitimacy rests on impartiality, respect for sovereignty, and service to all countries without fear or favour.
The Bigger Picture: A Fragile Global Health Architecture
Perhaps most concerning is the timing of the U.S. withdrawal notice. At a moment when the world is attempting to learn from COVID-19 and prevent future catastrophes, WHO Member States have taken historic steps forward. The adoption of the WHO Pandemic Agreement—once ratified—will stand as a landmark instrument of international law, designed to strengthen global preparedness and ensure equitable access to vaccines, diagnostics, and therapeutics.
Ongoing negotiations on the Pathogen Access and Benefit Sharing (PABS) system further aim to promote rapid pathogen sharing and fairness in benefit distribution—principles essential to preventing the next pandemic from becoming another global tragedy.
A Call for Global Responsibility
Health security is indivisible. Pathogens do not require visas, respect borders, or respond to political divisions. A weakened WHO is not a victory for any nation; it is a vulnerability for all.
WHO has expressed hope that the United States will, in time, return to active participation in the organization it helped to build. Until then, WHO reaffirms its constitutional mandate: to pursue the highest attainable standard of health as a fundamental human right for every person, everywhere.
In an interconnected world facing climate change, emerging diseases, antimicrobial resistance, and widening health inequities, global solidarity is not an option—it is a necessity.
The question before the international community is clear: will we retreat into fragmentation, or rise together to protect the health and future of humanity?
By Dr. Musa Abdullahi Sufi
About The Author
