Is Trump right to ditch the WHO?

The world's worst health crisis in a hundred years might not seem like the best time for the World Health Organization's biggest financial supporter to threaten to pull the plug on its operations, but that's where we are. On Friday afternoon, President Trump announced that the US is withdrawing entirely from the Organization.

The move comes ten days after the White House sent a withering four-page letter to the organization's Director General which accused the organization of ignoring early warnings about the virus' spread and bowing to Chinese efforts to downplay its severity. The letter closed with a threat to withdraw within 30 days unless the WHO shaped up to better serve "American interests." In the end, the Administration had patience only for 10 days after all.

Some argue that Trump is simply trying to divert attention from his own handling of the outbreak in the United States. Others counter that, love Trump or hate him, he's right about this. Here's a useful fact check of some of the letter's specific claims.

So, is Trump's criticism of the WHO fair?

Yes, the WHO is broken and must be forced to change. Faced with the outbreak of a potentially severe new illness, the WHO failed to expose the facts of the case. The organization either did not see or did not acknowledge evidence that China hid the true scale of the virus' threat and punished Chinese doctors who publicly warned that risks were growing. In January, the WHO's inspector publicly praised "China's commitment to transparency."

The refusal to directly provide information to Taiwan – which is excluded from membership in the organization out of international deference to China's wishes – put millions of Taiwanese people at unnecessary risk. Where's the transparency in that? Whether the WHO's failure was a result of ignorance or cowardice in the face of Beijing's newly assertive leadership, these problems cost the world valuable time that could have been used to slow momentum toward a global pandemic.

In sum, if the "WHO" can't safeguard "WH" at a moment like this, then we clearly need to remake the "O" itself.

No, Trump fails to understand what the WHO is and isn't. First, the Organization doesn't have a mandate to enter any of its member states "uninvited." Any restrictions on entry are China's to answer for, not the WHO's. And while China is prickly, it's hard to imagine the United States government – or many others for that matter – giving an international health organization free access to any information it wants.

Second, how do you blame the WHO for sounding the alarm late when the White House ignored the earliest WHO warnings. The organization called the virus a "global health emergency" in January. The Trump administration waited until March 16 to issue national social distancing guidelines. Had this been done even two weeks earlier, some virologists say, as many as 90 percent of American deaths could have been prevented.

Third, even if the WHO should be reformed, threatening to walk away from it in the middle of a pandemic is dangerous and short-sighted. COVID-19 is currently wreaking havoc in low-income countries that rely on WHO personnel and infrastructure to manage large parts of the pandemic response. Pulling the plug now risks an even greater human catastrophe.

Finally, Trump's threat is strategically foolish. If you're worried about Chinese influence at the WHO, walking out risks opening the way for...China! Just hours before Trump sent that letter 10 days ago, Chinese President Xi Jinping pledged up to $2 billion to help the WHO's global pandemic response efforts. Is that really what the White House wants?

What do you think? Is the current WHO a big problem in need of urgent reform, or is it an imperfect organization that's a lot better than any current alternatives?

EDITORS NOTE: This story has been updated to lead with President Trump's May 29 announcement that the US is cutting ties to the World Health Organization.

More from GZERO Media

Walmart’s $350 billion commitment to American manufacturing means two-thirds of the products we buy come straight from our backyard to yours. From New Jersey hot sauce to grills made in Tennessee, Walmart is stocking the shelves with products rooted in local communities. The impact? Over 750,000 American jobs - putting more people to work and keeping communities strong. Learn more here.

People gather at a petrol station in Bamako, Mali, on November 1, 2025, amid ongoing fuel shortages caused by a blockade imposed by al Qaeda-linked insurgents.
REUTERS/Stringer

Mali is on the verge of falling to an Islamist group that has pledged to transform the country into a pre-modern caliphate. The militant group’s momentum has Mali’s neighbors worried.

Last week, Microsoft released the AI Diffusion Report 2025, offering a comprehensive look at how artificial intelligence is spreading across economies, industries, and workforces worldwide. The findings show that AI adoption has reached an inflection point: 68% of enterprises now use AI in at least one function, driving measurable productivity and economic growth. The report also highlights that diffusion is uneven, underscoring the need for greater investment in digital skills, responsible AI governance, and public-private collaboration to ensure the benefits are broadly shared. Read the full report here.

- YouTube

At the 2025 Abu Dhabi Global AI Summit, UNCTAD Secretary-General Rebeca Grynspan warns that without deliberate action, the world’s poorest countries risk exclusion from the AI revolution. “There is no way that trickle down will make the trick,” she tells GZERO Media’s Tony Maciulis. “We have to think about inclusion by design."

- YouTube

In this Global Stage panel recorded live in Abu Dhabi, Becky Anderson (CNN) leads a candid discussion on how to close that gap with Brad Smith (Vice Chair & President, Microsoft), Peng Xiao (CEO, G42), Ian Bremmer (President & Founder, Eurasia Group and GZERO Media), and Baroness Joanna Shields (Executive Chair, Responsible AI Future Foundation).