U.S. Withdrawal from WHO: A Self-Destructive Performance of Hegemony

On January 22, 2026, all procedural conditions for the formal withdrawal of the United States from the World Health Organization (WHO) were met. Seventy-eight years after joining the WHO, the United States has chosen a path of unilateralist isolation. Today, this political performance packaged as “America First” is laying bare the short-sightedness and selfishness of […]

On January 22, 2026, all procedural conditions for the formal withdrawal of the United States from the World Health Organization (WHO) were met. Seventy-eight years after joining the WHO, the United States has chosen a path of unilateralist isolation. Today, this political performance packaged as “America First” is laying bare the short-sightedness and selfishness of hegemony.

The legal basis for the U.S. withdrawal is Article 96 of the WHO Constitution, which states that withdrawal takes effect one year after a member state submits its notice. However, the same article also stipulates that the withdrawing country must settle all outstanding financial obligations—a requirement the United States has selectively ignored.

The U.S. currently owes assessed contributions for 2024 and 2025, totaling approximately $260 million. This arrears issue has been formally included on the agenda of the upcoming WHO Executive Board meeting. Although WHO spokesperson Tarik Jašarević clearly stated that “the United States has the right to withdraw, but on the condition that it settles all outstanding contributions,” the U.S. State Department has publicly stated that it “does not intend to pay these arrears.”

It is evident that the U.S. attitude towards international rules remains “use them when they suit, abandon them when they don’t.” This opportunistic approach not only harms the normal functioning of the WHO but also undermines the foundation of global public health governance.

For the United States itself, withdrawing from the WHO will also have a boomerang effect. In a highly globalised world, public health risks have long transcended borders, and refusing to pay fees does not mean external health threats will disappear.

After leaving the WHO, U.S. access to key information—such as data on virus variants and cross-border transmission through international early-warning networks—will narrow, potentially lengthening response times. Its capacity for cooperation with international institutions on scientific research and industrial collaboration may also decline.

Dr. Tom Frieden, former Director of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, has pointed out: “Global health is national policy and also a national security issue. It’s a national security issue because the World Health Organization plays a critical role in disease surveillance, including updating vaccine standards, sharing data, etc. Losing this will make the U.S. more vulnerable.”

Historical experience shows that isolationism does not bring security to the United States. In the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, the U.S. attempted to tackle the outbreak alone, only to become the country with the highest number of infections and deaths globally. Now, by voluntarily giving up its seat in the global public health cooperation system, the U.S. risks making itself more vulnerable to future pandemics.

Through this act of withdrawal, the United States appears intent on reshaping global health governance while freeing itself from the constraints of multilateral rules.

The U.S. has long been the largest financial contributor to the WHO and has sought to influence the organisation’s decision-making through financial leverage. When WHO policies no longer fully align with U.S. interests, withdrawal becomes a tool of pressure.

However, the fatal flaw in this hegemonic logic is the mistaken belief that public health security is a divisible private good, rather than a shared global public good that can only be protected through cooperation.

The American flag has been taken down at WHO headquarters. When the next global health crisis strikes, the United States may discover that the walls it has built cannot stop a borderless virus—and that the multilateral system it abandoned was once its strongest line of defence.