Why the US Leaving the World Health Organization is Short-Sighted
This week in the Guardrail, what it looks like when a major player walks away from a seat at the global health table and what that power vacuum actually means for the pharmaceutical industry's bottom line. Especially for businesses trying to stay competitive in a connected world.
By Michelleanne Bradley and Michael Bronfman, Metis Consulting Services
February, 2, 2026
On 22 January 2026, the United States announced that it was formally withdrawing from the World Health Organization. Public health experts, analysts, scientists, and those of us who work in the field find this a dangerous decision that will jeopardize national and global security and is scientifically reckless.
Leaving the World Health Organization is more than a political decision. The consequences are practical, measurable, and deeply connected to health, safety, and a stable economy. This decision weakens disease surveillance, slows drug development, raises health risks, and reduces US influence at a time when worldwide cooperation is imperative.
What the World Health Organization Does
The World Health Organization coordinates global public health efforts. It tracks infectious diseases, sets international health standards, supports vaccination programs, and helps countries respond to emergencies, including pandemics, natural disasters, and outbreaks of emerging diseases.
The WHO's role in medicine, quality, and safety is significant. It runs global systems that monitor drug shortages, counterfeit medication, and adverse drug reactions. These systems support regulators like the US Food and Drug Administration and help pharmaceutical companies operate safely across borders.
The mission of the WHO is to promote health, keep the world safe, and serve the vulnerable.
The US needs the WHO as much as the WHO needs the US.
How WHO Membership Protects the US
Many in the US assume that global health work benefits only other countries. In reality, WHO programs are a first line of defense for the United States.
Disease outbreaks do not respect borders. Viruses travel by plane faster than governments can react. The WHO operates a global disease surveillance network that alerts countries to new threats early, giving US health agencies and pharmaceutical companies time to prepare diagnostics and treatments. Without direct access and influence, the United States risks slower warnings and less reliable information.
During outbreaks such as Ebola, Zika, and COVID-19, WHO data-informed US public health decisions and supported early research efforts.
Currently, US companies are world leaders in medical research and diagnostics, and the WHO is a massive buyer of those goods. In 2023 alone, the WHO purchased over $600 million in US products. When the US is an active member of WHO, contributing to the stability of the global health market, we help prevent mass economic shutdowns. Interruptions to the supply chain, like those that cost the US trillions of dollars during the COVID-19 pandemic, are a concern. Withdrawal from the WHO creates a leadership vacuum that our rivals will fill. With the US involved, we can be sure that global health standards, norms, and research agendas will be consistent with our national interests.
Historically, the US has provided expertise in eliminating diseases worldwide, including smallpox, and has brought polio to the brink of eradication. U.S.-funded programs targeting HIV/AIDS (PEPFAR), tuberculosis, and malaria rely on the WHO’s coordination to be effective. By disengaging from these efforts, we risk collapsing the infrastructure we have built. This can lead to a resurgence of diseases we have spent decades and billions of dollars fighting to suppress.
Impact on Pharmaceutical Research and Drug Development
The pharmaceutical industry depends on worldwide coordination of clinical trials. Regulatory standards rely on shared frameworks. Safety signals are detected through international data sharing.
The WHO supports the development of harmonized guidelines for clinical research, manufacturing quality, and pharmacovigilance. These guidelines reduce duplication, lower costs, and speed patient access to new therapies.
When the US withdrew, companies lost a seat at the table where these standards are shaped. Other countries will still move forward, led by Europe or China, and US firms will then face rules they did not help design. Agencies, including the CDC and NIH, have been instructed to halt official collaboration with the WHO, including co-authoring technical papers and participating in coordinated clinical trials, which previously helped US scientists quickly test treatments in diverse populations. This will create friction in drug development, increase compliance costs, and delay product launches.
Effects on Drug Safety and Quality
The WHO estimates that one in ten medical products in low and middle-income countries is falsified or substandard. These products do not stay overseas. Global supply chains mean unsafe medicines can enter the US market through imports, online pharmacies, or contaminated raw materials.
The WHO helps countries detect and stop these products before they spread. The WHO shares alerts with national regulators, including the FDA. Leaving the WHO weakens the safety net, putting US patients at greater risk of receiving ineffective or dangerous medicines.
Pandemic Preparedness and National Security
The US government has repeatedly recognized pandemics as serious threats to the economy and defense.
The WHO coordinates pandemic preparedness plans, emergency stockpiles, and rapid response teams. It helps countries share virus samples and critical research data for vaccine development. During COVID-19, early sharing of genetic sequences allowed US companies to begin vaccine development within days. That speed saved innumerable lives. Walking away from the WHO does not make the United States more independent. It makes it more isolated at precisely when cooperation matters most.
On 23 January 2026, California became the first US state to join a WHO-coordinated international network independently. California has joined the Global Outbreak Alert and Response Network (GOARN). California accessed international expertise and data for disease monitoring, allowing the state to stay connected to global health security and utilize early warning systems.
Loss of Leadership
For decades, the United States has helped shape global health policy through the WHO. This influence helped to align global health goals with values such as integrity, transparency, and accountability. The US's leaving does not eliminate the WHO; it creates a leadership vacuum. Other nations step in and shape priorities in their stead.
Without US participation, our perspectives on data sharing, regulatory science, and ethical research lose impact. This shift affects everything from outbreak reporting to drug approval standards.
Economic Consequences for the United States
Global health stability supports global economic balance. Outbreaks play havoc with supply chains, reduce workforce productivity, and slow trade. The World Bank estimates that pandemics can cost the global economy trillions of dollars. When the US invests in global disease prevention through organizations like the WHO, it reduces the risk of expensive disruptions that negatively impact businesses and workers.
Future of Global Health
Globally, health challenges are becoming more complex. Climate change is expanding the range of infectious diseases. Antibiotic resistance is rising. New viruses continue to emerge.
No single country can manage these risks alone. The WHO remains the only organization with the reach and mandate to coordinate a global response.
Renewing trust and reforming international institutions are difficult, and abandoning them is not a solution. Active participation allowed the United States to push for transparency and efficiency from within.
Leaving the World Health Organization is a mistake with real consequences. It weakens disease surveillance, slows pharmaceutical innovation, increases safety risks, and reduces US leadership worldwide.
For patients, it means greater exposure to health threats and fewer protections. For the pharmaceutical industry, it means higher uncertainty and reduced influence. For the world, it means a less coordinated response to crises that affect everyone.
Global health cooperation is not a favor to other countries. It is an investment in safety, prosperity, and leadership. Walking away from the WHO does not make the United States stronger. It makes the world, including the US, more vulnerable.
While the current administration maintains that leaving the WHO restores accountability for US taxpayers and allows more autonomous health policy, this is actually a penny-wise, billion-dollar-foolish move, leaving the US more vulnerable to the inevitable return of transnational health threats.
Connect with Metis Consulting Services today to keep your business steady while the global stage shifts. hello@meticconsultingservices.com
