As a founding member of the World Health Organization (WHO), the United States of America has contributed significantly to many of WHO’s greatest achievements, including the eradication of smallpox, and progress against many other public health threats including polio, HIV, Ebola, influenza, tuberculosis, malaria, neglected tropical diseases, antimicrobial resistance, food safety and more.
WHO therefore regrets the United States’ notification of withdrawal from WHO – a decision that makes both the United States and the world less safe. The notification of withdrawal raises issues that will be considered by the WHO Executive Board at its regular meeting starting on 2 February and by the World Health Assembly at its annual meeting in May 2026.
WHO takes note of statements from the government of the United States that say WHO has “trashed and tarnished” and insulted it, and compromised its independence. The reverse is true. As we do with every Member State, WHO has always sought to engage with the United States in good faith, with full respect for its sovereignty.
In its statements, the United States cited as one of the reasons for its decision, “WHO failures during the COVID-19 pandemic”, including “obstructing the timely and accurate sharing of critical information” and that WHO “concealed those failures”. While no organization or government got everything right, WHO stands by its response to this unprecedented global health crisis. Throughout the pandemic, WHO acted quickly, shared all information it had rapidly and transparently with the world, and advised Member States on the basis of the best available evidence. WHO recommended the use of masks, vaccines and physical distancing, but at no stage recommended mask mandates, vaccine mandates or lockdowns. We supported sovereign governments to make decisions they believed were in the best interests of their people, but the decisions were theirs.
Immediately after receiving the first reports of a cluster of cases of “pneumonia of unknown cause” in Wuhan, China on 31 December 2019, WHO asked China for more information and activated its emergency incident management system. By the time the first death was reported from China on 11 January 2020, WHO had already alerted the world through formal channels, public statements and social media, convened global experts, and published comprehensive guidance for countries on how to protect their populations and health systems. When the WHO Director-General declared COVID-19 a public health emergency of international concern under the International Health Regulations on 30 January 2020 – the highest level of alarm under international health law – outside of China there were fewer than 100 reported cases, and no reported deaths.
In the first weeks and months of the pandemic, the Director-General urged all countries repeatedly to take immediate action to protect their populations, warning that “the window of opportunity is closing”, “this is not a drill” and describing COVID-19 as “public enemy number one”.
In response to the multiple reviews of the COVID-19 pandemic, including of WHO’s performance, WHO has taken steps to strengthen its own work, and to support countries to bolster their own pandemic preparedness and response capacities. The systems we developed and managed before, during and after the emergency phase of the pandemic, and which run 24/7, have contributed to keeping all countries safe, including the United States.
The United States also said in its statements that WHO has “pursued a politicized, bureaucratic agenda driven by nations hostile to American interests”. This is untrue. As a specialized agency of the United Nations, governed by 194 Member States, WHO has always been and remains impartial and exists to serve all countries, with respect for their sovereignty, and without fear or favour.
WHO appreciates the support and continued engagement of all its Member States, which continue to work within the framework of WHO to pursue solutions to the world’s biggest health threats, both communicable and noncommunicable. Most notably, WHO Member States last year adopted the WHO Pandemic Agreement, which once ratified will become a landmark instrument of international law to keep the world safer from future pandemics. Member States are now negotiating an annex to the WHO Pandemic Agreement, the Pathogen Access and Benefit Sharing system, which if adopted will promote rapid detection and sharing of pathogens with pandemic potential, and equitable and timely access to vaccines, therapeutics and diagnostics.
We hope that in the future, the United States will return to active participation in WHO. Meanwhile, WHO remains steadfastly committed to working with all countries in pursuit of its core mission and constitutional mandate: the highest attainable standard of health as a fundamental right for all people.
Facts Only
* The United States of America contributed to WHO achievements, including smallpox eradication.
* The United States withdrew from WHO.
* The withdrawal raises issues for consideration by the WHO Executive Board (February 2026) and the World Health Assembly (May 2026).
* The U.S. cited "WHO failures during the COVID-19 pandemic" as a reason for withdrawal, alleging obstruction of information sharing and concealment of failures.
* The WHO asserts it acted quickly and transparently during the COVID-19 pandemic, sharing information and advising based on evidence.
* WHO responded to the cluster of cases in Wuhan by asking China for information and activating an emergency system.
* The WHO declared COVID-19 a public health emergency of international concern under IHR on January 30, 2020.
* During the pandemic, the WHO recommended measures like masks and vaccines but did not recommend mandates or lockdowns.
* The WHO has taken steps to strengthen its work following reviews of the pandemic and support country preparedness.
* WHO asserts it is impartial and serves all countries without fear or favor.
* WHO Member States adopted the WHO Pandemic Agreement and are negotiating an annex on pathogen access and benefit sharing.
Executive Summary
Full Take
The narrative frames the withdrawal as a direct consequence of perceived institutional failure, contrasting this with the WHO's performance during the COVID-19 crisis. This sets up a dynamic tension between accountability and operational reality. The invocation of past achievements (smallpox eradication) functions to establish historical legitimacy before pivoting to current governance issues. A key pattern involves the assertion of institutional integrity: the US claims manipulation, while the WHO counters with an appeal to its mandated impartiality and historical service. This is a classic instance of setting up a binary where truth is framed by procedural positioning rather than objective outcome review. The discussion regarding COVID-19 operations—where actions like recommending guidance versus mandating policy are contrasted—highlights how the *process* of response can become politicized even when data collection occurs transparently. The future focus on establishing binding international law through agreements (Pandemic Agreement) suggests a structural attempt to shift power dynamics from sovereign states toward a multilateral framework, which inherently challenges unilateral withdrawal strategies. The underlying implication is whether global health governance can successfully insulate operational mechanisms from geopolitical friction, or if existential crises will always expose the tension between state sovereignty and collective responsibility.
Bridge Questions: What independent metrics should be used to evaluate institutional performance during acute global crises beyond self-reporting? How can international agreements be structured to account for the legitimate sovereign concerns that drive withdrawal decisions while still ensuring necessary global coordination? What alternative frameworks exist for assessing accountability when systemic failures are attributed across multiple actors?
Sentinel — Human
The text functions as a focused political statement arguing for the integrity of the WHO during a period of international tension, displaying characteristics consistent with well-informed, human-authored diplomatic analysis rather than generalized synthetic output.
