Blog > Rebuilding Global Health Leadership: Why U.S. Re-Engagement with the WHO Still Matters

By GARR Staff  

December 1, 2025

In January 2025, President Trump issued an Executive Order initiating the withdrawal of the United States from the World Health Organization (WHO), citing concerns about the agency’s performance, governance, and geopolitical influences (The White House, 2025). The decision immediately raised alarm across the global health community and within industries reliant on coordinated public-health infrastructure—particularly medical devices, diagnostics, and pharmaceuticals.


Although the U.S. withdrawal process takes a full year, the implications were felt quickly. Global health experts, manufacturers, and governments voiced concerns about weakened disease surveillance, disrupted supply chains, and reduced support for low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), which depend heavily on WHO-led programs for essential medicines and medical technologies. As several researchers highlighted, stepping back from the WHO during ongoing threats—from antimicrobial resistance to future pandemics—could intensify global vulnerability and diminish U.S. influence in the space where health, diplomacy, and economics converge (Buse et al., 2025; Yazdi-Feyzabadi et al., 2025).


🔍 Understanding the Policy Options

In evaluating the potential paths forward for the United States, three primary options emerged:


  • Full Re-Engagement With the WHO: Reversing the withdrawal order and fully restoring staffing and funding would reestablish U.S. leadership in coordinated global health efforts. Some experts indicate that the benefits of participation outweigh the costs—particularly given the scale of pandemic-related economic losses relative to WHO membership contributions (Yazdi-Feyzabadi et al., 2025). Re-engagement would also ensure continued access to global surveillance data and harmonized regulatory frameworks critical to medical devices and pharmaceutical markets.
  • Launching a New U.S.-Led Global Health Initiative: A newly created global health body designed around U.S. priorities could amplify domestic influence and potentially support American manufacturing—including medical devices. However, experts warn this approach risks duplicating existing systems, fragmenting global coordination, and incurring even higher administrative costs (Yamey & Titanji, 2025). For companies with extensive Rest of World (RoW) business lines, such fragmentation could introduce commercial uncertainty.
  • A Strategic Partnership or Hybrid Model: Maintaining only essential WHO funding while demanding targeted reforms may appear financially and politically appealing. However, selective engagement risks limiting the broader public-health benefits that full membership facilitates. A partial approach may also erode trust among global partners and complicate multilateral coordination during emergencies.
💡 Where Things Stand Now (December 2025)

As of November 2025, several confirmed developments provide a clearer picture of the U.S. relationship with the WHO, while experts continue to warn about additional risks on the horizon.


 

  • Expert Warnings About Impact on Global Surveillance and U.S. Influence: Public-health experts emphasize that withdrawal could weaken global health-security infrastructure, especially surveillance systems used to detect emerging threats such as influenza, novel viruses, and AMR. Source: CIDRAP Analysis (2025) https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/covid-19/trump-issues-order-withdraw-us-who?utm. These assessments align with the concerns highlighted in your original June 2025 review.

📣 Areas to Watch in the Coming Months

While not yet documented in official reports, several developments are being actively discussed among global-health policy analysts, think tanks, and industry observers. These include;


  • Potential for Gaps in U.S. Access to WHO Surveillance Data: Reduced engagement may gradually limit U.S. access to global outbreak-tracking platforms (influenza, AMR, polio, vector-borne diseases). There have not been documented failures at the current time, but this remains a serious concern.
  • Industry and Academic Advocacy: Several U.S. public-health schools, professional associations, and global-health coalitions have publicly opposed the withdrawal. While no major unified lobbying effort has been confirmed, industry concern is increasing, particularly in sectors reliant on harmonized regulatory pathways (e.g., medical devices, diagnostics, biotech).
  • Diplomatic Dialogue Remains Possible: No official reports confirm new negotiations between the U.S. and WHO leadership. However, analysts note that re-engagement—whether conditional or full—is still possible if political conditions shift in 2026.
🗣️Looking Ahead: A More Stable Path for Global Health

The events of 2025 have underscored a simple truth: global health security is inseparable from global cooperation. Whether through disease surveillance, medical-device quality harmonization, or equitable distribution of life-saving technologies, the WHO remains a central platform for protecting both U.S. interests and global well-being.


While we still face challenges and areas to watch, there is also a significant opportunity to act and collaborate for the future. Continued engagement—even partial—helps safeguard U.S. leadership and global health stability. Is re-engagement the most strategic path for protecting national health security and supporting the global expansion of U.S. medical-device and pharmaceutical innovation? – Only time will tell.


📚 References
  • Buse, K., Gostin, L., Kamarulzaman, A., & McKee, M. (2025). The US withdrawal from the WHO: a global health crisis in the making. BMJ, 388, r116. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.r116
  • Yamey, G., & Titanji, B. K. (2025). Withdrawal of the United States from the WHO — How President Trump Is Weakening Public Health. NEJM, 392, 1457–1460. https://doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2501790
  • Yazdi-Feyzabadi, V., et al. (2025). The United States Withdrawal From the World Health Organization: Implications and Challenges. International Journal of Health Policy and Management, 14, 9086. https://doi.org/10.34172/ijhpm.9086

See More Articles from the GARR Blog!

Read More
error: Content is protected !!