In the summer From 2020, 15 recognized leaders in American public health gathered an article in the Lancet – one of the world’s leading medical journals – to withdraw Donald Trump’s intention to withdraw the US from the World Health Organization, a decision later by president Reverse Biden before it came into effect.
Nearly five years later, one of the openings of Salvos of Trump’s second term was to start the process again to withdraw the US from the WHO. The move is already attracting controversy and the threat of legal challenges.
According to a joint resolution of 1948 accepted by both homes of Congress, any such withdrawal requires that the US gives the WHO one year notice, but it seems that Trump’s intentions are to withdraw immediately and do so without doing so seeking the approval of Congress.
“The executive order announces the immediate withdrawal to the WHO, and he is not seeking the authorization of Congress, nor does he give the necessary notice of one year,” says Lawrence Gostin, a professor of public health law at the Georgetown University Law Center in Washington, DC, and one of the co -authors of the 2020 Lancet article. “In my opinion, it is reckless and is lawless, and it must be disputed in court.”
Trump has a long history of criticism of the WHO, which the organization previously accused of being “corrupt”, “the spread of Covid-19,” severely mismanagement and covered “. The US has historically been one of the WHO largest funders, with a few estimates suggesting that it offers a fifth of the organization’s total budget. Between 2022 and 2023, the US provided the WHO of nearly $ 1.3 billion.
However, Gostin and others are particularly concerned about the effects of a US withdrawal on the country’s ability to manage the constant threat of infectious diseases. While the WHO has a far -reaching task, ranging from advice on essential medicines to recommendations on public policy on everything from tobacco and drug use to traffic safety, it is probably most impactful when it comes to supervising potentially problematic new diseases, such as like like like Bird flu and coordination of an international reaction.
“Withdraw from who makes us more alone, more vulnerable and fragile in the world,” says Gostin. ‘You can’t shut down a border against a pathogen. We must be on the ground to set out fires before coming to the United States. And we also need a large network to provide us with the information about mutations and viruses we need to develop life -saving vaccines and medical treatments. “
According to Sten Vermund, chief medical officer of the Global Virus Network and another co -author of the Lancet article, what happens next depends on the reactions of other countries and non -governmental organizations such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, The World Bank and Gavi, the vaccine alliance, which all offer the WHO of considerable financing. After Trump cut US contributions to the WHO to $ 680 million in 2020–21, Germany responded by fourfold its contributions to more than $ 1 billion. The Danish government also agreed to double its contributions, and placed a strong emphasis on improving sexual and reproductive health and tackling non-communicable diseases.