Former President Donald Trump, resuming his presidency, reignited international debate by announcing the United States’ withdrawal from the World Health Organization (WHO). This controversial decision, made through an executive order, cited dissatisfaction with the WHO’s handling of the COVID-19 pandemic, alleged political biases, and failure to implement necessary reforms. Trump, referring to his previous 2020 attempt to leave the organization, called it “a big one.” His earlier effort was halted by President Joe Biden, who had reversed the withdrawal in 2021.
The move has drawn widespread condemnation from global health experts. Dr. Ashish Jha, who once coordinated the White House’s COVID-19 response, labeled the decision a “strategic error” with the potential to amplify China’s influence in global health initiatives. Similarly, Lawrence Gostin of Georgetown University described the withdrawal as “cataclysmic,” criticizing it for undermining global health collaboration and diminishing the U.S.’s leadership on the international stage.
In addition to exiting the WHO, Trump signed another executive order signaling the United States’ withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement. This pact, which aims to cap global warming at 1.5°C, had previously been abandoned by Trump in 2017 but was rejoined by Biden in 2021. Trump criticized the agreement for imposing economic burdens on the U.S. and failing to align with American values. He argued that the nation’s ability to balance economic growth with environmental sustainability could serve as a global model.
Both decisions face procedural hurdles and legal scrutiny, with critics questioning their long-term impact on global cooperation and America’s international credibility. Concerns also linger over the potential vacuum in leadership and accountability these moves may create in both public health and climate action.
Trump’s bold actions have not only reignited partisan divides but also raised pressing questions about the U.S.’s role in addressing global challenges. While supporters see the moves as reclaiming sovereignty, detractors warn of far-reaching consequences for international diplomacy and cooperation.
