Posted originally on Jan 24, 2026 by Martin Armstrong |  

The United States Withdrawal from the World Health Organization: A Cyclical Analysis of Sovereignty and Global Health Governance

January 23, 2026

The Trump administration’s decision to withdraw the United States from the World Health Organization represents far more than a simple policy shift. This marks a critical inflection point in the post-World War II international order, one that follows predictable cyclical patterns we have observed throughout history when nations reassert sovereignty against supranational institutions that have overreached their original mandates.

The Historical Context

The WHO was established in 1948 during the reconstruction period following World War II, part of the broader Bretton Woods architecture designed to prevent future global conflicts through international cooperation. For 76 years, the United States served as the organization’s largest financial contributor, providing approximately 16% of its total budget when combining assessed contributions and voluntary funding. This amounts to roughly $1.3 billion annually in recent years.

However, the relationship has deteriorated along a predictable timeline. The first withdrawal announcement came during Trump’s initial term in 2020, following the COVID-19 pandemic’s emergence. That was 51.6-years conclusion from its birth April 7th, 1948. That decision was reversed by the Biden administration in 2021. The current withdrawal, formalized through executive action in January 2025, follows the same 51.6-year cycle we observe in shifts between nationalist and globalist governance models.

The WHO declared COVID-19 a global pandemic. This was a call to action, not a declaration for lockdowns. In March 2020, the WHO advised countries to take urgent and aggressive action. A key phrase used by WHO officials was that countries should go on a “war footing” and that the goal was to “flatten the curve.”

 The WHO’s primary recommendation was for a comprehensive package of public health measures, including testing, contact tracing, and isolating cases. Physical distancing, a term they preferred over “social distancing,” to reduce transmission where the virus was spreading uncontrollably. That was absurd and void of science. They claimed this would protect health systems from being overwhelmed.

Crucially, the WHO often framed widespread “lockdowns” (stay-at-home orders, business closures) for when transmission was out of control and other measures failed. They emphasized that lockdowns should be used to buy time to set up stronger testing, tracing, and healthcare systems. The specific decision to implement a full lockdown, including its timing and severity, was made entirely by national and local governments. This is what caused massive economic destruction.

On Mass Vaccination, December 31, 2020 was the key date. The WHO issued its first Emergency Use Listing (EUL) for the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine. This was a regulatory step to validate the vaccine’s safety and efficacy for global use, enabling distribution to countries without strong regulatory agencies. The was total BS and nobody has looked at bribery now that we know the vaccines were neither safe nor effective.

The WHO, along with partners like Gavi and CEPI, set up the COVAX Facility, which was their Strategic Goal (Late 2020/Early 2021):. Its goal was to ensure global, equitable access to vaccines, with an initial target of vaccinating the most vulnerable 20% of every country’s population at tremendous profit to Bill Gate, et el.

The WHO strongly advocated for the rapid and equitable rollout of vaccines as the primary tool to end the acute phase of the pandemic. They issued guidance on prioritization (health workers and high-risk groups first) and later on booster doses.

The Sovereignty Cycle

What we are witnessing aligns with historical patterns of nations reclaiming authority from international bodies when those institutions are perceived to have exceeded their technical mandates and entered political domains. The WHO’s handling of the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly its initial deference to Chinese government narratives in early 2020, created a crisis of confidence that has proven insurmountable.

The core grievances driving this withdrawal include:

The United States contributed disproportionately while possessing voting power equivalent to smaller nations. This economic reality became politically untenable when Americans questioned the return on investment during a crisis that originated in Wuhan.

The organization’s relationship with Beijing, including praise for China’s pandemic response despite evidence of initial cover-ups, damaged credibility among Western powers. This follows the pattern we see whenever international institutions become captured by specific national interests.

Proposed pandemic treaty provisions that would have granted WHO officials greater authority during health emergencies rising to the level of a dictatorship triggered constitutional concerns about delegating emergency powers to unelected international bureaucrats.

The Economic Implications

The immediate financial impact on WHO will be severe. Losing 16% of operational funding creates an organizational crisis that will force prioritization of core functions over peripheral programs. This will likely accelerate a shift toward programs funded primarily by China and European nations, fundamentally altering the institution’s character.

For the United States, the $1.3 billion in annual savings represents a trivial fraction of the $6.8 trillion federal budget, but the symbolic value is enormous. This money will theoretically be redirected toward bilateral health partnerships and domestic public health infrastructure, though government efficiency rarely works so cleanly.

The Geopolitical Realignment

This withdrawal accelerates the bifurcation of global health governance into competing spheres of influence. China will inevitably expand its role within WHO, using health diplomacy as another tool of influence across developing nations, particularly in Africa and Southeast Asia. The Belt and Road Initiative already incorporates health infrastructure; WHO alignment provides multilateral legitimacy to these bilateral arrangements.

Europe faces an uncomfortable choice. France and Germany have criticized the American withdrawal while simultaneously acknowledging WHO’s structural problems. They lack the financial capacity to replace American contributions without politically difficult budget reallocations. This forces European powers to either accept diminished WHO capabilities or increase contributions at a time when domestic budgets face unprecedented pressures.

The power vacuum in global health governance will not remain empty. Nature abhors a vacuum, and so does geopolitics. Regional health organizations will gain prominence—the African CDC, Pan American Health Organization, and similar bodies. This fragmentation may actually improve responsiveness to regional needs, though it complicates coordination during truly global health emergencies.

The Pandemic Preparedness Question

The central question is whether centralized global health governance actually improves pandemic outcomes. The evidence from COVID-19 is mixed at best. Nations that ignored WHO guidance initially—Taiwan, for instance—often fared better than those that followed it religiously. This suggests that rigid international protocols can become obstacles rather than solutions during rapidly evolving crises.

Decentralization creates redundancy, which engineers recognize as essential for system resilience. If one node fails, others continue functioning. Multiple competing approaches to pandemic preparedness may seem inefficient compared to unified global standards, but they provide the adaptive diversity necessary for responding to unknown future threats.

The American withdrawal will likely spur domestic investment in disease surveillance and rapid response capabilities. Whether this proves more effective than WHO-coordinated efforts depends on execution, but the incentive structure changes dramatically when you cannot externalize responsibility to international bureaucracies.

The Turning Point

We are at a major turning point in international relations that extends far beyond health policy. The post-1945 architecture of international institutions was built on American willingness to fund and participate in organizations that constrained American sovereignty in exchange for rules-based international order. That bargain is being renegotiated in real time.

The WHO withdrawal follows the broader pattern of questioning whether these institutions serve their original purposes or have become self-perpetuating bureaucracies resistant to reform. The United Nations, International Criminal Court, and various trade organizations face similar credibility challenges. When institutions designed to solve collective action problems become forums for political positioning, their utility diminishes.

The timing aligns with our models showing increased sovereign assertion occurring in 2024-2028 across multiple domains. This is not isolated American policy but part of a global trend toward nationalism and away from multilateral consensus. Britain’s exit from the European Union, the rise of sovereignty-focused governments across Europe, and increasing skepticism toward international climate agreements all reflect the same underlying cycle.

Reality

The American exit from WHO represents a calculated rejection of the post-war globalist model in favor of bilateral relationships and domestic capacity building. Whether this proves strategically wise depends on factors that will not become clear for years. Pandemics, by their nature, do not respect borders or political preferences. The problem is sovereignty and the attempt by the WHO for global Dictatorial Powers is incompatible with a democratic/represented form of government. Yet, that is the ultimate goal of the globalists – a one-world power with absolute unelected control.

What is certain is that global health governance will be fundamentally restructured around this decision for the better. The WHO will either reform dramatically to retain relevance with remaining members, or it will become a vehicle for Chinese influence over developing nations’ health policies. Neither outcome serves the original mission of coordinating global disease prevention and response.

The cycle suggests this is not the end of international health cooperation, but rather a transition period before new arrangements emerge. History shows us that international institutions must evolve or become obsolete. The WHO’s failure to adapt to changing geopolitical realities made this outcome inevitable. The question now is whether what replaces it will be more effective or simply more fragmented.

The United States has made its choice. The rest of the world must now decide whether to reform the institution, replace American funding, or accept a diminished role for multilateral health governance. These decisions will shape pandemic preparedness for the next generation, for better or worse. From an economic viewpoint, this is a fantastic decisions when the WHO has lost all credibility and then had the audacity to see g;lobal dictatorial power without even medical personel.

Meanwhile, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus is the head of the World Health Organization. Tedros is the first person in the 72-year history of the WHO who is NOT even a medical doctor, just like Bill Gates. It was Schwab who supported him for that post, just as he recommended Legarde for the IMF and then for the European Central Bank. He has also put in the head of the IMF from his board of the WEF as well. Schwab also has the WHO in his back pocket. To put someone who is not a medical doctor at the head of the World Health Organization would be like putting Jeffrey Epstein as the head of a monastery. There have been long-standing concerns about Tedros as well as calls for his resignation which go unanswered.

Schwab is not evil. He is just an academic who believes that government has the power to alter the economy and the future. He has created his Young Global Leaders and his Global Shapers all to be indoctrinated with his philosophy that we are not individuals but mere worker bees in a hive destined to serve the queen or, in this case, the government.

Many academics look down upon society with disgust – we are the great unwashed. They fail to see that all innovation comes only from the freedom to think. They are repulsed by the thought that we are of any value to society. They believe they are far more intelligent than the workers below, so why bother to even speak to us? Julian Huxley was part of the establishment of the United Nations setting out the goals of UNESCO where he outright stated that “unrestricted individualism is equally erroneous.” He saw the individual as meaningless.