Donald Trump’s decision to withdraw the United States from the World Health Organization (WHO) has generated an uproar in the medical community, which warns that this “remedy” may be worse than the disease. Trump justifies his exit by arguing that the $1.3 billion expenditure is wasteful, but the consequences for Americans will be enormous.
---
Lee este artículo en español.
---
The United States is the main supporter of the WHO, followed by Germany, the United Kingdom, Canada, Japan, France and China. Joe Biden’s administration had already criticized the management of the global body, whose structure composed of many member states slows down its functioning, as was seen during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, President Trump’s handling of this situation has led to abrupt decisions, such as the announcement of the discontinuation of key functions that are vital for efficient coordination in the face of new pandemics.
Trump decided to completely sever the relationship with WHO within a year. This has led the organization to activate an adjustment plan amid uncertainty. Public health experts face the challenge of finding alternatives to fill the gaps that will arise as a result of this decision. The most worrying aspect is that the departure of the United States jeopardizes actions to contain multiple health emergencies, such as the smallpox virus, avian flu, Ebola or tuberculosis.
The isolation of the United States from the global community raises concerns. Judd L. Walson, an international health expert at John Hopkins University, sums up the dangers of this in the event of a pandemic outbreak: “We are not part of the discussion on how to contain an outbreak, nor do we have access to the data or pathogen sequences that could help in the development of vaccines or treatments. All of that is now a black box.” This implies that, should an epidemic emerge, the nation will lack visibility into crucial decisions.
While it may appear that the United States saves resources by withdrawing from WHO, the costs of a poorly managed pandemic could be much higher. This scenario may cause more harm than actual savings, as the lack of information and international collaboration may result in ineffective management of health emergencies, endangering public health and increasing long-term costs.
It is advisable to implement a more thoughtful plan that prioritizes emergencies, given that there are critical research, humanitarian programs and contributions to thousands of organizations that provide services in the most remote areas of the world. This action has been an example and model for the United States to follow globally.
We live in an interconnected world. For example, melioidosis, an infectious disease present in contaminated soil and water, showed its impact last year when the Puerto Rico Department of Health issued an alert after six cases, four of them fatal. The treatment that saved two lives came from research in a remote village in Thailand.
The Trump administration has also implemented gimmicky policies, such as asking Elon Musk to cut federal spending, initiating a trade war with Europe and China by aggressively raising tariffs, and positioning the Ukrainian regime of Volodymir Zelenski as a victimizer vis-à-vis Russia. However, the WHO’s exit is particularly worrisome. Its decisions can have pendulum swings, as seen in the trade arena, but in this context, returning to the WHO may be too late.
U.S. disengagement from WHO not only limits its ability to address a global health crisis, but also weakens its influence on essential decisions. The enormous importance of international collaboration to combat health threats cannot be ignored by the Donald Trump administration.
---
This content was translated from Spanish to English using artificial intelligence and was reviewed by an editor before being published.
