Global & US Headlines
U.S. Finalises Exit from WHO, Pulling 15% of Agency Budget
On 22 Jan 2026 the United States’ one-year notice matured, formally severing its membership and funding to the World Health Organization and forcing WHO governance bodies to open legal and budgetary reviews next month.
Focusing Facts
- U.S. contributions had totaled about $958 million for the 2024-25 biennium—roughly 15 % of WHO’s operating budget—which now disappear.
- Washington leaves owing an estimated $260 million in unpaid 2024-25 assessed dues, a liability the WHO says must be settled before withdrawal is fully recognised.
- WHO’s Executive Board will debate the withdrawal’s procedural and financial fallout beginning 2 Feb 2026, with the World Health Assembly scheduled to make final determinations in May 2026.
Context
Great-power walk-outs from multilateral bodies are not new: the U.S. quit UNESCO in 1984, only to re-enter in 2003 and depart again in 2017 before rejoining in 2023. Each exit created funding vacuums quickly filled by other actors—chiefly the EU, Japan and, more recently, China—shifting soft-power balances. The 2026 WHO departure fits a longer arc of American retrenchment from post-1945 institutions amid domestic scepticism of global governance, a trend mirrored by Brexit and China’s parallel institution-building (AIIB, BRI health corridors). In the near term, programmes like polio eradication that depend on earmarked U.S. dollars face disruption; over decades, persistent underfunding could accelerate a two-tier global health architecture where private philanthropies and regional blocs, rather than a universal agency, set priorities. Whether the U.S. return cycle repeats—or rivals step permanently into the gap—will colour the legitimacy of the post-war health regime well into the late 21st century.
Perspectives
International mainstream outlets amplifying WHO response
e.g., Vanguard, Manila Standard — They stress that the U.S. pull-out undermines global health security and maintain that Washington’s accusations about WHO’s Covid-19 failures are unfounded. By leaning heavily on WHO press releases and quoting Tedros at length, these reports largely sidestep detailed scrutiny of the agency’s early-pandemic missteps, reflecting an instinct to defend multilateral institutions that furnish them with news copy and expert access.
African regional outlets focused on development impact
e.g., The Star, The Citizen — They warn that the withdrawal will choke off vital funding for programmes such as polio, malaria and HIV in countries like Kenya and Tanzania, reversing years of health gains. Their reliance on U.S. and WHO dollars means they may overstate impending catastrophe and underplay opportunities for home-grown financing in order to nudge donors to keep the money flowing.
U.S. nationalist officials attacking WHO
as quoted in Toronto Sun, Manila Times — Statements from Secretary of State Marco Rubio and HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. frame the exit as reclaiming sovereignty from an incompetent, anti-American bureaucracy that botched Covid-19 and imposed harmful mandates. The rhetoric dovetails with domestic political incentives—shifting blame for pandemic fallout and appealing to voters skeptical of international bodies—while providing scant evidence beyond broad allegations.