Document Type : Commentary
Authors
1
Department of Community Health Sciences, Aga Khan University, Karachi, Pakistan
2
Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China
3
Jeffrey Cheah School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Monash University Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
4
School of Universal Health Coverage, Shifa Tameer-i-Millat University, Islamabad, Pakistan
5
Department of Global Health and Development, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK
Abstract
On January 22, 2026 the United States formally left the World Health Organization (WHO), eight months after an editorial by Yazdi-Feyzabadi’s and colleagues forecast what its departure would cost. This commentary affirms the editorial’s central concerns while extending the analysis in four directions: situating the withdrawal within a longer history of US ambivalence toward multilateral institutions; examining who is, and is not, filling the resulting funding void; assessing whether the editorial’s proposed remedies are politically realistic; and weighing its predictions against post-withdrawal events. Developments to date (a 21% WHO budget cut, workforce reductions, weakened disease surveillance, and curtailed programs in low- and middle-income countries) confirm, and in places exceed, the editorial’s forewarnings. There is broad consensus that, for many functions, no alternative arrangement can substitute for the legitimacy that only a universal-membership intergovernmental body like the WHO provides. We argue, however, that the opportunity for shaping a more resilient, less US-dependent governance architecture is narrowing and demands deliberate action now.
Keywords
