America, the leader of the free world, is once again hellbent on abdicating its global leadership responsibilities. Donald Trump is back, and so is his signature foreign policy move—cutting the US off from some key global organisations. He has, just like during his first term, decided that the World Health Organisation (WHO) doesn’t deserve US funding anymore. His reason is the same as before: the WHO did not act right during the Covid-19 pandemic and that it’s bent more favourably towards China.
The American contribution to WHO in 2024 was $950 million. This was nearly 15% of the organisation’s budget, making it the largest single donor out of 194 member countries. So, when Trump pulls out, it’s not just a dent—it’s a crater in the organisation’s budget.
The WHO is funded through two primary sources: assessed contributions, which are mandatory dues paid by the 194 member countries, calculated on factors like a country’s wealth and population, and voluntary contributions, which come from member states, private individuals, philanthropic organisations and other partners. A significant portion of the WHO’s budget relies on voluntary contributions, chiefly the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, which provides substantial funding to support various global health initiatives. In fact, the Gates Foundation has pledged to continue to contribute to global health causes.
A Billion-Dollar Challenge To Trump
The WHO, worried but not surprised like last time, has politely asked Trump to reconsider his decision. It says it “plays a crucial role in protecting the health and security of the world’s people, including Americans, by addressing the root causes of disease, building stronger health systems, and detecting, preventing and responding to health emergencies, including disease outbreaks, often in dangerous places where others cannot go”.
There has been a global backlash to the US move. But this one should put the country to shame: a member of WHO staff has embarked on a campaign to raise $1 billion through crowdfunding—just enough to cover what the US contributed in 2024. So far, donations have been only trickling in—ordinary citizens of the world are paying from $1 to $4,000 per person. It’s a noble gesture, a show of defiance against Trump, but let’s be honest. It’s like climbing Mount Everest. The symbolism, though, is powerful. The message to Trump is clear.
The WHO is no stranger to both applause and outrage. It vaccinated over 90% of children in Gaza against polio—commendable indeed, considering it accomplished the feat during the ongoing war in Gaza. It battled the Ebola virus in conflict zones where even armies feared to tread. It has led global vaccination drives that have saved millions of lives. But it has its share of shortcomings and failures too: it botched the early COVID-19 response, hesitating to call out China when the virus first spread, it has been accused of bureaucratic delays that cost lives during major health crises, and though it has launched internal reforms since the end of the pandemic, they are not enough.
Ironically, Trump’s executive order to cripple WHO financially to further his cause of pushing the “America First” agenda may prove counterproductive. By walking away from global commitments, Trump might be winning cheers from his MAGA base, but he doesn’t realise that when the next global health crisis hits, his country might find itself very much alone. And for a country that was once the leader of the free world, that’s quite a downgrade.
Also, what should be more worrying for the US is the possibility that Trump’s action may just open up space for China to step in to fill the gap. Last time Trump pulled this stunt, China rushed in, pledging to increase its voluntary contributions to the WHO. This time, Beijing is still weighing its options.
An Ever-Growing China
The US exiting the WHO and other global agreements and institutions under Trump’s “America First” policy is going to create a power vacuum, which China is sure to quickly move to fill. If this trend continues, Beijing will feel that it would gain the ability to reshape international norms, setting rules that favour its economic, political and ideological interests.
There’s proof to back this. But first let’s look at which treaties and organisations Trump got out of during his first term that led to the US retreating from global leadership:
- World Health Organization (2020): The US left it amid the COVID-19 pandemic, accusing it of being too China-centric
- Paris Climate Accord (2017): The US claimed that it unfairly burdened the US while allowing China to pollute.
- Iran Nuclear Deal (JCPOA) (2018): America’s exit led to Iran’s renewed nuclear activity and increased West Asia tensions.
- Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) (2017): The US cancelled a major trade pact designed to counter China’s dominance in Asia.
- UNESCO & UN Human Rights Council (2018): The American withdrawal was due to claims of bias against the US and Israel
- Arms Control Treaties: The US withdrew from the INF Treaty with Russia, increasing global arms race risks
- NATO & G7 Threats: Trump repeatedly threatened to withdraw from NATO, weakening confidence in the alliance
Each of these exits did not necessarily weaken the organisations themselves, but they certainly led to massive uncertainties. Some might argue it reduced US influence and allowed China to step in an effort to fill the leadership vacuum.
Did China Gain From US Withdrawals?
When Trump cut WHO funding in 2020, China stepped up, committing $50 million more to fill the gap. Though the increased amount was far below the US contributions, it allowed Beijing to increase its influence in the organisation, block investigations into COVID-19 origins, and promote its vaccines globally. When Trump withdrew from the Paris Climate Accord, China became the climate leader in climate discussions. Beijing now portrays itself as greener than the US, despite being the world’s largest polluter. Similarly, after Trump unilaterally left the Iran Nuclear Deal, China strengthened ties with Tehran. It also increased oil imports from Iran and expanded economic ties, undermining US sanctions.
Moreover, when Trump withdrew, rather foolishly, from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), China joined the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), now the world’s largest trade pact—without the US being a part of it. The result is that the Asian countries now trade more with China than the US.
China Sets The Agenda
China secured key leadership roles in UN agencies such as the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), which governs internet standards. It uses these positions to push for global acceptance of Chinese tech models, such as surveillance-based governance.
The more Trump withdraws from global agreements and institutions in the name of the “America First” campaign, the weaker it makes his country, because someone else takes its leadership role. That someone else, in this case, will be none other than China. By enhancing its contributions to a large extent, it will surely set global economic rules, trade investment policies favouring state-owned enterprises, and Chinese dominance. It could control global health governance by prioritising Chinese interests, influencing pandemic response and vaccine policies. It will try to shape digital and internet rules by expanding China’s alleged authoritarian “cyber sovereignty” model, limiting online freedoms.
China will expand military alliances by strengthening BRICS and China-led military partnerships to counter US alliances. It will try to dominate climate policies by controlling carbon markets and green technologies while holding the West accountable for emissions.
China Can Be Checkmated
There is still time for influential countries like India and European nations to step up, support the WHO more and prevent China from assuming a dominant decision-making role. Rather than allowing Beijing to expand its influence unchecked, member countries must collectively address WHO’s funding and governance challenges. Mid-sized economies like India and Brazil, along with developed nations, such as the UK, Germany and France, should increase their contributions to maintain a balanced and effective WHO. The organisation’s past success in eradicating smallpox—one of humanity’s greatest achievements—demonstrates that global health cooperation can transcend political divides to protect everyone.
As for the US, I wonder, does MAGA truly make America stronger, or does it isolate the country while China fills the void in global institutions? With each withdrawal—from WHO to climate agreements and beyond—Trump’s America retreats from leadership, leaving a power vacuum that Beijing is eager to exploit. Are we heading towards “America First” or “America Alone”?
(Syed Zubair Ahmed is a London-based senior Indian journalist with three decades of experience with the Western media)
Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author