U.S. Formally Withdraws from World Health Organization

Partisan politics and foreign policy continuity

• Some see the withdrawal as part of a broader Republican project to dismantle international institutions that might constrain US elites.
• Others argue there is a sharp break between Trump and Democratic administrations, noting that a previous Trump attempt to leave WHO was reversed by Biden.
• A more radical view claims deep continuity: both parties back aggressive foreign policy and differ mainly in rhetoric, with Democrats “following” Republicans on issues like COVID and foreign interventions.
• That stance is heavily disputed, with some commenters calling it propagandistic or “deranged.”

US decline, global leadership, and soft power

• Several comments frame this as another marker of the end of US global “leadership,” citing earlier dates like 2017, Jan 6 2025, or even the 2000 election as turning points.
• People expect damage to US soft power and anticipate other states, especially China, will fill influence and funding gaps at WHO.

China, WHO, and traditional medicine vs biotech

• Multiple comments note China increasing WHO funding and worry this will further institutionalize Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM), citing its inclusion in ICD as anti–evidence-based.
• Others push back, arguing Western pharma underfunds trials for non-patentable natural substances, so “evidence-based” practice is structurally biased.
• There is surprise and concern over China actively exporting TCM to Africa, including training centers and wildlife impacts.
• At the same time, several argue China’s real play is high-end biotech, where it is seen as “eating our lunch” as US agencies are weakened.

COVID, Trump, and WHO performance

• One thread laments that Trump could have easily won reelection if he had followed scientific guidance, instead of promoting conspiracies, undermining experts, and seeding vaccine distrust.
• Others list earlier mistakes: ending pandemic early-warning programs, restarting risky “gain-of-function” research, and disbanding preparedness teams.
• A minority attacks WHO’s early COVID handling, calling it slow or denialist; others counter with WHO’s published timeline and argue precautionary measures were justified under uncertainty.

Views on WHO itself

• Some argue WHO is politicized and “subverted by rogue states,” so withdrawal is overdue, even if no alternative exists yet.
• Others see WHO’s flaws but still consider coordinated global health governance indispensable, warning that dismantling it without a replacement is dangerous.

Polarization and political exhaustion

• Many express sheer exhaustion with constant crisis news, Trump’s omnipresence, and deepening polarization.
• There is pessimism that things will get worse before they get better, and worry about what future generations will inherit.