US Withdrawal from WHO Sends Shockwaves Through Global Health System

The United States sent major shockwaves through the global health system byleavingtheWorld Health Organization (WHO)in January 2026. Not only is theUnited Statesone of the founding members of WHO, but it has also traditionally been the largest contributor, accounting for nearly 15% of its budget. Its withdrawal creates a critical funding gap that disproportionately affects Africa, where WHO spending is heavily invested in fightinginfectious diseasesand strengthening fragile healthcare systems. In 2020-2021, WHO, for example, allocated $17.6 million (€15 million) to Malawi. The health body has not published recent figures, but many development finance analysts estimate a reduction following the US withdrawal. "It is saddening to note that the relationship between one of the founders of the World Health Organization, which is the US and the WHO has gone sour," Maziko Matemba, a Malawian health activist, said. "We know most of the developing countries, like Malawi, will have problems, because we have relied on technical expertise from the World Health Organization on health [sector] strengthening," Matemba told DW. No one at WHO headquarters in Geneva was available for comment when DW reached out. AJanuary statementmade by the organization says it "regrets" the US's notification of withdrawal from WHO, "a decision that makes both the United States and the world less safe." WHO's Executive Board is meeting on February 2 to discuss, among other things, the US intention to withdraw from WHO. Programs targetingHIV/AIDS,tuberculosis (TB),malaria,polioandneglected tropical diseasesare especially vulnerable. Countries such asNigeria, Uganda,Kenya,Mozambique, Zambia and theDemocratic Republic of Congo (DRC)are among the largest recipients of US-linked global health funding. These countries now risk disruptions to drug procurement, prevention campaigns and community health services. Experts warn that even short-term disruptions can lead to increased transmission,drug resistanceand reversals of decades of progress in HIV and TB control. Another significant impact could be on disease surveillance andemergency response. Health experts say the capacity toeffectively respond to health emergenciesin Africa may weaken. The WHO plays a significant role in coordinating outbreak detection, data sharing and rapid response. For example, in tackling outbreaks of theEbolaandMarburgviruses, cholera and emerging respiratory diseases. US technical support and funding have been critical to containing and tackling these health challenges, through collaborations in laboratory testing, joint external evaluations ofpandemic preparednessand emergency financing. African countries may face slower outbreak detection and less coordinated international support. To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser thatsupports HTML5 video Such a scenario also increases the risk thatlocal epidemics escalate into regional or global crises. Individuals like Mildred Chisale, a sex worker in Malawi's capital, Lilongwe, worry about access to lifesaving drugs, especially after the Trump administration alsoterminated USAID programs. "I was part of a group called Female Sex Workers Association (FISWA), which worked together with USAID to allow us access to drugs like PREP," Chisale told DW. PREP is an antiretroviral tablet that people who are at risk of HIV explosure can take to prevent acquiring HIV. "Since USAID stopped funding local organizations, we have been affected," she added. Beyond emergency response, WHO-supported programs in Africa contribute to healthcare workforce training, maternal and child health,immunizationcampaigns and health governance. Budget cuts to these crucial areas may force governments to increase borrowing, raise household healthcare costs and exacerbate health inequities. In low-income contexts, this can mean delayed care and higher mortality, especially for women andchildren. In addition, withdrawing from the WHO reduces US influence over global health norms and standards, potentially opening space for other powers — such asChina— to shape priorities and governance. For Africa, this could mean a gradual shift toward alternative donors and regional health bodies, particularly the Africa Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (Africa CDC). Whilegreater African ownershipof health security is a positive long-term goal, a sudden transition risks creating gaps in financing, coordination, and technical capacity. The US withdrawal also deals ablow to multilateralism. For African governments that have long depended on predictable and stable international health partnerships, the US move reinforcesconcerns about the reliability of major donorsand the fragility of global health commitments. It also means skilled health workers will lose jobs. Malawian health activist Matemba said that he was hearing that a significant proportion of the WHOworkforce globally will be retrenched, adding that it shows how vital US funding is to the WHO's operations. Back in May 2025, the WHO already announced plans, which need to be discussed with member states, to reduce its workforce byabout 25%by mid-2026. Edited by: Cai Nebe