Milan, March 4, 2025 – The World Health Organization (WHO) is at the center of a heated global debate following U.S. President Donald Trump‘s announcement of his intent to withdraw the country from the agency. The possibility that other nations might follow suit has alarmed the scientific community, which warns of the dangers of weakening global health cooperation at a time when diseases recognize no borders.
Despite criticisms regarding its bureaucracy and management efficiency, the WHO remains an irreplaceable institution for epidemiological monitoring, health crisis management, and supporting developing countries. The U.S. withdrawal could severely impact the collection of crucial data needed to combat outbreaks like seasonal flu, with worldwide repercussions.
The WHO’s Irreplaceable Role in Global Health
The WHO plays a vital role in monitoring infectious diseases and coordinating international health responses. Even in the absence of large-scale emergencies, the organization ensures:
- Epidemiological surveillance to detect and report emerging health threats.
- International coordination in handling crises such as epidemics and pandemics.
- Support for healthcare systems in poorer countries by providing vaccines, medicine, and technical assistance.
- Research and development of strategies to combat diseases like malaria, tuberculosis, and HIV.
In low-income nations, where healthcare infrastructures are weak, the WHO’s presence is crucial in preventing disease outbreaks and ensuring access to medical care.
The Impact of the U.S. Decision and Public Health Risks
The first tangible consequence of the U.S. decision has already emerged: the country has stopped sharing seasonal fluepidemiological data with the WHO. This disrupts a vital collaboration within the Global Influenza Surveillance and Response System (GISRS), a network of 151 laboratories across 127 countries that track flu virus mutations to formulate effective vaccines.
According to Professor Fabrizio Pregliasco, virologist and lecturer at the University of Milan, losing U.S. data is a major scientific setback. Without these insights, there is a risk of developing less effective vaccines, impacting public health not just in the U.S. but globally.
Criticism and the Need for Reform, but WHO Remains Essential
There is no denying that the WHO has issues, including bureaucratic inefficiencies and the need for greater transparency in decision-making. However, as Professor Pregliasco points out, undermining its role would be a mistake:
“Declaring the WHO useless and withdrawing from it puts global health at risk. There are criticisms, but its work has been crucial, from managing Covid-19 to controlling epidemics in Africa. Facing a pandemic without global coordination is unthinkable.”
International cooperation is vital for tackling future health challenges. Without a supranational body, emergencies risk being handled in a disorganized manner, with potentially devastating consequences.
The Debate is Open: Your Opinion Matters!
What do you think about the proposal to withdraw from the WHO? Should it be reformed, or is its role still crucial for global health? Leave a comment below and join the discussion!
