Implications of US WHO withdrawal

Mr Anthony Natif. Photo/Courtesy
What you need to know:
- The two decisions must have left a bitter dinner aftertaste. ”
On January 20 2025, right in the middle of falling US presidential inauguration confetti, an announcement that reverberated around the global health corridors came thundering off of the presidential resolute desk.
The 47th President of the United States had signed an executive order withdrawing his country from the World Health Organisation (WHO) and then went off to attend three inauguration balls.
His decision was greeted with thunderous applause from his base, with the prevailing sentiment being that America was finally back working for everyday Americans and not outsiders.
In withdrawing from the WHO, President Trump accused the health body of "mishandling" the Covid-19 pandemic, failing to adopt "urgently needed reforms" and being politically influenced by other member states who in return, he claims, weren’t paying their fair share. "Everybody rips off the United States and that's it, it's not going to happen anymore," he said.
The decision to withdraw his country from an organisation they helped found in 1948, shouldn’t surprise anyone who was half awake during his last term. He did the same thing at the tail end of his first term in July 2020 and it was only reversed by his then-successor and now predecessor, President Joe Biden because the requirement of a one-year notice period coincided with the start of Biden’s presidency.
WHO leadership responded with regret. Their Director-General, Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, said: "For over seven decades, WHO and the USA have saved countless lives and protected Americans and all people from health threats,"… "Together, we ended smallpox, and together we have brought polio to the brink of eradication. American institutions have contributed to and benefited from membership in WHO."
We are yet to hear from their remaining largest funder, the Gates Foundation, whose co-founder, philanthropist Bill Gates, had only a few days earlier expressed optimism and given effusive praise for the newly elected president following a reported three-hour dinner with him.
This decision and the one that withdrew the US from the Paris Climate Agreement must have stung. Those two decisions must have left a bitter post-dinner aftertaste. Perhaps that explains his absence from the billionaire parade at the president’s inauguration.
DM oped drop cap: It also leaves the world’s premier health body firmly reliant on corporate-backed entities.
The public health world has reacted with dismay and fear. They’ve called the withdrawal a strategic mistake that exposes the American population to health risks and also diminishes America’s role on the global health stage.
The WHO works as the global disease surveillance police, giving member states quick data on emerging health threats and thus marshalling quicker responses to outbreaks.
The public health crises that have come close to shutting down the world are zoonotic in nature. Think Ebola, Covid-19, Marburg etc. WHO has been at the forefront of fighting these.
Without a country funding at least 20 per cent of the WHO budget, third-world countries like Uganda might be facing vaccine shortages, less investments in disease surveillance and prevention as well as higher numbers of preventable deaths.
Some of the noises from Uganda’s political spaces have been, rather intriguingly, blaśe.
One Ugandan Minister on the X platform (formerly Twitter) responded to President Trump’s announcement thus: “Brilliant President @realDonaldTrump. Why pay more contribution with a population of less than 350m people as rivals with over 1.2 billion pay only 10%? It will impact on low developed economies definitely but he has a point”.
It’s very difficult to tell if the good minister understands the implications of the US move on the Ugandan healthcare system.
In a healthcare system like ours, we’ve been heavily reliant on WHO to plug gaps. In return, we’ve been acting as a training ground for frontline lifeguards for Western healthcare systems and saving our citizens’ lives might have been of secondary importance.
This is about to change. Uganda will have to step up its contribution to the healthcare budget. Currently, just under 5 percent of our budget goes to healthcare, falling woefully short of the 15 percent target set by African Union member states in the Abuja declaration, some 23 years ago.
With major backers like the United States scaling back, our leaders might have to rethink buying bombs and other military ware and substitute them for vaccines and ambulances.
The writer is team leader, Public Square
@TonyNatif