On Jan. 20, U.S. President Donald Trump enacted an executive order to begin the United States' exit from the World Health Organization (WHO), with an effective date of Jan. 2026.
The United States is the biggest contributor to the WHO, providing about 15% of its budget—approximately $678 million each year through a mix of assessed and voluntary donations. Its removal will create a financial gap that may hinder essential health programs globally, such as vaccination efforts, disease monitoring, and emergency response activities.
For nations such as the Philippines, which gain from WHO-supported initiatives targeting infectious diseases, maternal well-being, and nutrition, this choice may lead to severe repercussions. This funding backs essential health projects globally, particularly in Southeast Asia, where $31 million was designated in 2024 alone.
Global health setback
WHO relies on findings and data from U.S. research centers. An example is the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, which has played a historic role in global health efforts during the COVID-19 pandemic. Without their data and research, nations would be in the dark to combat rising threats like influenza, worldwide pandemic infections, or antimicrobial resistance that confront the 21st century.
The lack of U.S. leadership can also enable other countries, notably China and Russia, to control global health policy—a turn of events not necessarily consistent with democratic or evidence-based practice.
Experts say the withdrawal will move the U.S. further from WHO's worldwide network of health intelligence, monitoring disease outbreaks and coordinating global responses.
In an interview with Time Magazine, Brown University School of Public Health Dean and former White House COVID-19 Response Coordinator Dr. Ashish Jha pointed out that the denial of access to WHO's database makes Americans and the whole world more vulnerable to pandemics.
“For Americans it may not be obvious immediately what the impact will be, but given the world we live in and all of the factors that are driving more disease outbreaks, America cannot fight them alone,” she emphasized.
For the Philippines, both a founding member of WHO and home to its Western Pacific Regional Office, America's withdrawal poses serious challenges. The nation benefits from WHO efforts in maternal and child health, immunization, HIV/AIDS prevention, and pandemic readiness. In 2024 alone, Southeast Asia will benefit from $31 million worth of financial support from WHO—a healthy majority of which arrive as donations in the form of U.S. funding.
In a Philippine Daily Inquirer's interview with former Health Secretary and 1st District Representative of Iloilo Janette Garin, she raised a warning that the U.S. withdrawal would compromise local health programs funded by WHO.
“This issue is so important to the Philippines because many health issues and programs on health are getting funding support from the WHO, and, of course, it is expected that the United States Agency for International Development’s (USAID) contributions to different countries will decrease because of this move,” she stated.
Blow to Philippine development
On Jan. 24, Trump's administration put on hold all foreign aid programs for a 90-day review and announced to close down the USAID outright. With some $94 million (₱5 billion) in ongoing education, environment, and health projects already under threat, the impact on Philippine development is colossal.
The short and long-term effects of the USAID closure are analyzed in this report, which identifies USAID-funded projects like Opportunity 2.0—a second opportunity program for out-of-school youth—and HIV prevention programs that have been forced to put operations in abeyance.
Among the hardest hit programs is an HIV epidemic control program that was funded with $6.7 million last year. Organizations such as LoveYourself Inc., that offer free HIV testing and prevention services, have been compelled to suspend mass-scale activities such as HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis dispensation and self-testing campaigns.
In an interview with the Philippine Star, Rhadem Musawah, one of the leaders of Mujer, an LGBTQIA+ rights organization in Zamboanga City, described the immediate impact on how it will affect the LGBTQIA+ community in their area.
“Our legal and humanitarian assistance to LGBT communities will stop, along with our efforts on local policy lobbying for anti-discrimination ordinances and LGU engagements–our operations connected to the USAID grant all over Mindanao,” he cited.
Despite assurances from Philippine officials like Department of Foreign Affairs Undersecretary Eduardo de Vega that the freeze is temporary and negotiations are ongoing, analysts warn this signals a broader shift in the U.S.-Philippines relations.
Additionally, Renato de Castro, a professor of international studies at De La Salle University, with his interview with Philstar Global, said the development may ultimately stop foreign assistance related to climate change and reproductive health.
“One of the first that will be affected is the US economic assistance that has to do with reproductive health…because when it comes to Republicans, any support when it comes to reproductive health will be removed,” he conveyed.
The suspension endangers ongoing efforts to curb the spread of HIV/AIDS and provide healthcare access to marginalized groups.
Parallel with Duterte’s ICC withdrawal
The move by Trump's administration is a reflection of the action by former President Rodrigo Duterte to withdraw from the International Criminal Court (ICC) in 2019. Both are nationalist rhetoric favoring sovereignty over multilateralism and risking isolating their countries from the world systems.
Duterte's ICC withdrawal was condemned as an erosion of tools of accountability for alleged human rights abuses during his "war on drugs." Trump's WHO withdrawal has similarly been assailed as a surrender of world leadership in a globalized world wherein global unity is the sole means in responding to global health crises.
The Trump and Duterte withdrawal is merely one example of a larger populist political trend of placing nationalist agendas ahead of multilateralism. Although both framed their actions as acts of sovereignty defense, they were criticized by their opponents as acting politically opportunistically and selfishly. For such global governance jurisdiction as the ICC and WHO, such actions are setbacks of democracy. They weaken collective efforts to address transnational challenges—whether crimes against humanity or pandemics—and fortify other leaders to follow suit with their actions.
Trump's pulling out of USAID and WHO mirror Duterte's ICC pull-out in evading global accountability mechanisms. Both are in the nation's best interest but may drive a country to long-term isolation and adverse effects on vulnerable groups. In the Philippines, such occurrences highlight a need to wean itself from foreign assistance by reinforcing local mechanisms.
Though diplomatic attempts remain a call for Washington to rethink, the world should focus on solidifying domestic infrastructures to temper prospective disruption. What has transpired in the Philippines shows us all just how connected global health is—and why no country can afford to "do it alone."
