The United States has formally terminated its membership in the World Health Organisation (WHO), delivering a scathing rebuke of the global health body as a "bloated, inefficient bureaucracy".

This dramatic move, announced on 23 January 2026, cites the WHO's mishandling of the COVID-19 pandemic and a series of alleged failures that inflicted significant harm on American citizens.

In a joint statement from US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the US declared that all funding and staffing for WHO initiatives have ceased immediately. Engagement with the organisation will henceforth be limited to facilitating the withdrawal process and protecting American public health interests.

The statement emphasised America's intent to lead global public health efforts independently. "The United States will continue to lead the world in public health, saving millions of lives and protecting Americans at home by preventing infectious disease threats from reaching our shores," it read, while pledging a shift towards "direct, bilateral, and results-driven partnerships" with trusted nations and institutions.

This action fulfils a long-standing promise by President Donald Trump, who signed Executive Order 14155 on his first day back in office. The order mandated withdrawal from the WHO, responding to what the US describes as the body's critical shortcomings during the COVID-19 crisis, including delays in sharing vital information that could have saved lives.

US officials accused the WHO of abandoning its foundational mission as a founding member and the organisation's largest financial contributor. Instead, they claim, it pursued a "politicised, bureaucratic agenda driven by nations hostile to American interests", obstructing timely data dissemination under the guise of public health priorities.

Tensions escalated further as the US highlighted the WHO's refusal to return the American flag displayed at its headquarters. The organisation reportedly deems the withdrawal unapproved and insists on compensation, an act the statement labelled as the latest in a series of insults towards America, from its inception as the body's primary founder and backer.

The withdrawal forms part of a broader US strategy to disengage from multilateral bodies perceived as contrary to national interests. Earlier in January 2026, President Trump signed a presidential memorandum directing exits from 35 non-UN organisations and 31 UN entities, including key bodies such as the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs, International Law Commission, and UN Population Fund.

This sweeping realignment signals a pivot towards unilateralism in American foreign policy, prioritising domestic priorities over international commitments. Critics within the US and abroad have warned that such moves could undermine global health coordination, especially amid ongoing threats like antimicrobial resistance and emerging pandemics.

The WHO, headquartered in Geneva, now faces an uncertain future without its biggest donor, which historically provided around 15-20% of its budget. The organisation has yet to issue an official response, but past statements from Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus have defended its role in saving millions of lives through equitable vaccine distribution and pandemic response frameworks.

From a geopolitical standpoint, the US exit exacerbates divisions within the UN system, echoing Trump's first-term withdrawal in 2020, which was later reversed under President Biden. Reinstated funding followed, but renewed Republican control has reignited long-held grievances over perceived WHO bias towards China during the early COVID-19 outbreak.

American conservatives have long criticised the WHO for what they term "China-centric" decision-making, including praise for Beijing's initial pandemic response despite evidence of cover-ups. The joint statement explicitly references these issues, framing the withdrawal as a rectification of harms to US small businesses, nursing home residents, and families affected by lockdown policies influenced by WHO guidance.

Health Secretary Kennedy, known for his vaccine scepticism, underscored the need for "transparent and effective" alternatives. The US plans to channel resources into bilateral deals, potentially with allies like the UK, India, and Israel, focusing on rapid-response technologies and data-sharing without bureaucratic overlays.

India, a major WHO partner through initiatives like COVAX, may feel ripple effects. As a rising power in global health manufacturing—producing over 60% of the world's vaccines—New Delhi could benefit from enhanced US bilateral ties, aligning with its "Make in India" push in pharmaceuticals and biotech.

Economically, the US withdrawal could save taxpayers hundreds of millions annually, redirecting funds to domestic priorities like border health security and infectious disease prevention. However, global health experts argue this risks fragmenting response capabilities, potentially delaying outbreak detection in vulnerable regions.

The flag dispute symbolises deeper acrimony. US diplomats are demanding its return "for the Americans who died alone in nursing homes" and those impacted by "WHO-driven restrictions", evoking emotional memories of the pandemic's toll, which claimed over one million American lives.

Looking ahead, the WHO's funding shortfall may force budget cuts or reliance on contributors like Germany, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and China. This shift could alter the organisation's priorities, possibly amplifying voices from the Global South at the expense of Western influence.

For the US, this marks a "promises made, promises kept" moment in Trump's second term, reinforcing an "America First" doctrine. Allies in the Quad—Australia, Japan, and India—may align closer on health security, fostering Indo-Pacific alternatives to WHO-led frameworks.

Ultimately, the termination ends what the US calls "bureaucratic inertia, entrenched paradigms, conflicts of interest, and international politics" that rendered the WHO "beyond repair". Whether this heralds a more agile global health order or increased vulnerability remains a pivotal question for 2026 and beyond.

Based On ANI Report