California Scrambles to Fill Gaps After US Withdraws From WHO as Experts Warn of Risks to Global Health Security
The United States formally withdrew from the World Health Organization on January 22, 2026, prompting warnings from public‑health experts who say the move could hinder outbreak intelligence, vaccine planning and international coordination critical to global health security.
- U.S. membership in WHO ended Jan. 22, 2026, with agencies pledging bilateral work instead of WHO participation.
- Experts warn the exit could slow outbreak intelligence, complicate vaccine strain selection, and weaken global responses to threats like flu, mpox, polio and Ebola.
- Financial and legal disputes over dues and authority to withdraw are unresolved and may prompt hearings or litigation.
What changed on Jan. 22
The formal withdrawal ended U.S. membership and participation in WHO committees, suspended U.S. funding to the agency, and recalled many U.S. personnel from WHO offices. Federal agencies said they will continue to cooperate with countries and nongovernmental partners on shared threats, but they will not rejoin WHO or remain as an observer. The Department of Health and Human Services and the State Department issued a joint statement outlining the steps.
Why public-health experts sound the alarm
Global health experts say the U.S. exit could blunt the country’s access to fast-moving outbreak intelligence that arrives through WHO networks. Timely data sharing helps scientists pick flu vaccine strains, speeds clinical trials and vaccine development, and coordinates responses to emerging threats.
“The most ruinous presidential decision in my lifetime,” said Lawrence Gostin of Georgetown University, and Dr. Ronald Nahass of the Infectious Diseases Society of America called the move “shortsighted, misguided, and scientifically reckless.”
Their comments were reported by ABC7 and ABC News in the days after the withdrawal. The CDC noted the departure could affect technical activities traditionally coordinated through WHO, such as influenza strain surveillance used to update vaccines.
Federal rationale and promises of bilateral action
The Trump administration framed the withdrawal as a correction to perceived WHO failures, citing alleged political influence and delays during COVID‑19, including disputed timing around emergency declarations and criticism of U.S. travel restrictions. Officials also pointed to a long-term imbalance in leadership and funding. The administration pledged to expand direct, bilateral work with partner countries on surveillance and preparedness rather than rely on an international body. Reporting cited includes ABC7, ABC News, and the CDC.
Financial and legal disputes
Tension over money followed the notice of withdrawal. The WHO says its rules require outstanding assessed dues to be paid before a formal exit and has cited figures suggesting the U.S. owes over $133 million. Some reports put higher totals if voluntary program contributions are counted. U.S. health officials and legal advisers dispute whether those amounts are owed under the WHO constitution and the terms of withdrawal; the matter may be taken up in international and domestic legal forums. See statements from ABC7 and the WHO.
Questions about authority and Congress
Some lawyers and public-health observers note that U.S. membership in the WHO dates back to a 1948 act of Congress that ratified the WHO constitution. Critics argue that only Congress has the power to end such membership formally; the administration says it followed required executive processes under international law and WHO rules. The debate over ultimate authority could lead to court challenges or congressional hearings.
California’s posture and the limits of reporting
Local officials in California say they are closely watching the federal move and assessing risks to the state’s population of nearly 39 million. Some leaders have publicly expressed concern that losing direct WHO ties could slow early outbreak alerts. However, a detailed review of available reporting found no public, verifiable announcement from Governor Gavin Newsom or the California Department of Public Health confirming a formal plan to “plug directly into global disease‑tracking networks” independent of WHO.
Where reporting has noted state-level efforts, it is generally framed as preparatory work or routine international collaborations that states and universities already maintain. State press offices did not publish plans matching a wholesale WHO replacement as of this writing.
What is documented is that state and local public-health agencies often rely on federal and global networks for early warning and pathogen data. If federal channels change, California health leaders say they will need to adjust how they gather intelligence, whether by expanding relationships with academic labs, private data platforms, and bilateral agreements with foreign health agencies. Formal plans to create a statewide substitute for WHO membership were not located in public records or reporting at the time of publication.
Global reactions and WHO response
The WHO expressed deep regret and said the withdrawal makes both the United States and the world less safe. The agency announced it would address the issue at its upcoming Executive Board meeting and the World Health Assembly in May. Many member states and global health partners warned that the aisle between countries may grow wider without a central coordinating body.
Implications for the United States
- Public safety and early warning: The U.S. could lose timely access to global disease data that often passes fastest through WHO channels, potentially delaying domestic responses, vaccine planning and treatment guidance.
- State burden and local readiness: States like California may need to expand surveillance tools and partnerships, increasing costs for lab capacity, data systems and cross-border coordination—costs borne by governors and state legislatures.
- Economic and agricultural risks: Delayed detection of livestock or crop diseases and human outbreaks can harm interstate commerce, tourism and farm incomes.
- Diplomacy and targeted cooperation: Relying on bilateral deals may produce strong ties with some nations but leave gaps where the U.S. has limited direct presence.
- Fiscal and legal fallout: Disputes over dues or authority could trigger hearings and litigation that divert attention and resources from preparedness.
Reporting note
This article draws on reporting and official statements from major news outlets and federal agencies. Key sources include ABC7, ABC News, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Department of Health and Human Services, the State Department, and the World Health Organization.
State and local officials contacted for this article were asked to comment on how they plan to adapt surveillance and data-sharing after the U.S. exit. As of publication, no public, verifiable plan from Governor Gavin Newsom’s office outlining a direct replacement to WHO access was available in news reports or agency releases.
