The Danger of American Isolationism

by yaleglobalhealthreview, posted in Uncategorized

BY NIRAJ SRIVASTAVA

On his first day back in presidential office, Donald Trump signed an executive order withdrawing the US from the World Health Organization (WHO) in 12 months.1 His signature marks an alarming descent into American isolationism regarding health, throwing the future of global health in peril. 

Since the WHO’s inception in 1948, the US has functioned as one of the organization’s most integral member states and powerful allies. In addition to providing operational support, the financial contributions of the US are critical to funding WHO initiatives across the globe.2 Out of 194 member states, the US is the largest financial contributor. In 2022 and 2023, the US contributed over 1.28 billion dollars, about 12% of the WHO’s annual budget.3 President Trump cites this disproportionate financial burden as the compelling reason to exit the WHO, specifically pointing to China’s far smaller voluntary contribution relative to its economic size.1 

Regardless, the US’ impending exit from the WHO signals a dangerous deprioritization of global health in US policy. While the executive order calls for the identification of partners to resume “necessary activities previously undertaken by the WHO,” it is unfathomable that such collaborations will come close to matching the efficacy of the coordinated efforts of the international community through the WHO.1,2 The underlying logic that the US should only invest in the health of its own people rather than the health of those outside the US is not only dangerous for the health of Americans, as demonstrated by the COVID-19 pandemic, but also morally dubious. The US has the resources and expertise to help improve the health of the world’s most vulnerable populations; to remove that aid threatens the integrity of current and future global health initiatives and jeopardizes the health of millions of people relying on foreign aid due to insufficient domestic healthcare infrastructure. 

President Trump’s definitive steps to remove the US from the forefront of international collaboration on global health will hamper the world’s ability to recognize and respond to growing health threats, especially in the face of global processes that know no borders such as globalization, urbanization, and climate change. Human health is becoming more interconnected than ever before, and thus, international collaboration through frameworks like the WHO is imperative. 

For instance, consider mosquito-borne illnesses such as malaria, dengue fever, and West Nile virus. These diseases have different optimal temperatures of transmission, and since climate change alters temperature patterns around the world, it alters their patterns of transmission. Therefore, disease burden shifts.4 For dengue virus, the optimum temperature for transmission is relatively high at about 32 degrees Celsius (about 90 degrees Fahrenheit), so with global warming, the geographical range of mosquito carriers of dengue fever is projected to grow, especially in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia.5,6,7 One model predicts that by 2080, about 2.25 billion more people will be at risk for dengue fever compared to 2015, partly due to climate change and population growth.8 In addition, climate change will increase the frequency and severity of rainfall and flooding in certain regions, where standing water provides optimal conditions for mosquito vectors to breed and transmit diseases. For example, in Bangladesh in 2023, a longer and more intense monsoon season than normal led to the largest recorded dengue outbreak in the country, with more than 300,000 infected and 1,570 people dead.9 

WHO not only assists with disease surveillance and control to identify and minimize outbreaks but also facilitates the implementation of novel solutions.10 For example, the WHO coordinated the Malaria Vaccine Implementation Programme (MVIP) in Ghana, Malawi, and Kenya to conduct a Phase 3 clinical trial trying to prevent severe malaria and see if it is a viable option for greater public health use, potentially offering a solution to drastically mitigate the danger of malaria in regions where disease burden is high.11 Without the WHO’s oversight, such a huge logistical undertaking may not have occurred, illustrating how the WHO is critical to the advancement of global health, especially for countries with poor healthcare infrastructure. 

WHO initiatives like MVIP, critical to improving the health of people across the world, are threatened by the US withdrawal from the organization—not only due to the immediate reduction of resources and expertise but also because of the slippery slope it establishes. If the US, one of the most powerful and richest countries, steps away from international global health, then other countries may begin to consider: why must they assume the burden of investing in global health for others? The US is at a critical point in its history, where it must decide whether to engage in international collaboration or isolationism while the health of billions of people, both in the present and future, hangs precariously.

Niraj Srivastava is a first-year in Pauli Murray College.

——————————

References

  1. Withdrawing The United States From The World Health Organization. The White House https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/withdrawing-the-united-states-from-the-worldhealth-organization/ (2025).
  2. Walson, J. & Desmon, S. The U.S. and the WHO: An Imperfect but Essential Relationship. Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2025/the-consequences-of-the-us-withdrawal-from-the-who (2025)
  3. Richter, F. The U.S. Is the Largest Contributor to the WHO. Statista. https://www.statista.com/chart/33800/top-contributors-to-the-world-health-organization/
  4. Stanford researchers explore the effects of climate change on disease. Stanford Report. https://news.stanford.edu/stories/2019/03/effect-climate-change-disease. (2019)
  5. Liu, Z. et al. The effect of temperature on dengue virus transmission by Aedes mosquitoes. Front. Cell. Infect. Microbiol. 13, 1242173 (2023).
  6. Colón-González, F. J. et al. Projecting the risk of mosquito-borne diseases in a warmer and more populated world: a multi-model, multi-scenario intercomparison modelling study. Lancet Planet. Health 5, e404–e414 (2021).
  7. Ryan, S. J., Carlson, C. J., Mordecai, E. A. & Johnson, L. R. Global expansion and redistribution of Aedes-borne virus transmission risk with climate change. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 13, e0007213 (2019).
  8. Messina, J. P. et al. The current and future global distribution and population at risk of dengue. Nat. Microbiol. 4, 1508–1515 (2019).
  9. Chandrashekhar, V. As Temperatures Rise, Dengue Fever Spreads and Cases Rise. Yale e360. https://e360.yale.edu/features/dengue-fever-climate-change. (2023)
  10. Dengue (Human). UNDRR. https://www.undrr.org/understanding-disaster-risk/terminology/hips/bi0059 (2023).
  11. Malaria: The malaria vaccine implementation programme (MVIP).World Health Organization. https://www.who.int/news-room/questions-and-answers/item/malaria-vaccine-implementation-programme. (2020)

Leave a comment