America pulls out of WHO, what does this mean for the University of Leeds?

Donald Trump has pulled America’s funding out of the World Health Organisation, depriving the organisation of 20% of its budget. I spoke with several Leeds University academics who had worked with the WHO about the effect this could have on research, and international health. 

Donald Trump has withdrawn the USA from the world health organisation (WHO), the change will take effect after a year, according to National Geographic, upon which time America’s funding to the WHO ceases. 

Currently the United States provides 20% of the budget of the WHO, with a majority of that funding being voluntary funding which the USA can specify how and where its spent. The next largest country to fund the WHO is Germany who provide less than 10% of total WHO funds.

The move by the Trump administration to withdraw from the WHO comes alongside other foreign policy decisions to cease most of America’s foreign aid. 

Trump’s dislike of the WHO can be traced back to his previous term in office, where he tried to withdraw the USA from the WHO following the beginnings of the Covid-19 pandemic. The move was halted by the incoming Biden administration. However, this current attempt to withdraw from the WHO has been made so early in the term that it will likely complete the withdrawal before any other administration can reverse the decision. 

Trump has cited several concerns with the WHO which could motivate this decision, firstly in his first term he stated the WHO failed to act quickly enough on Covid-19, secondly Trump routinely stated America paid too much into the WHO relative to the amount of support it got from the organisation, finally Trump also argued that the WHO was overly loyal to China, as reported by the BBC in 2020.

It would be remiss not to discuss these claims in more depth. Firstly the claim that the WHO should have acted more quickly in response to Covid-19 was later held up by a report on the pandemic which held the WHO had acted too slowly to declare the outbreak in Wuhan. However, the claim might be partially complicated by the fact the Chinese government is known to reject opportunities for doctors to share data around medical crises which are seen as sensitive. 

The question around America’s contribution also has a degree of truth to it as America contributes approximately 20% of the WHO’s budget, the next closest country is Germany contributing only around 4%,according to the WHO themselves. However, this perspective misses crucial nuances such as the fact the mandatory assessed contributions have largely been frozen since the 1980s after lobbying from the Regan administration this left the majority of the WHO’s funding needing to originate with members voluntary contributions, these contributions can be directed to specific projects by the donor nation, this leaves the majority of America’s contributions voluntary anyway. 

The final argument is that the WHO is overly loyal to China. This claim originates out of both the praise lavished on China by the head of the WHO at the start of Covid and the longer running dispute over the WHO refusing to admit Taiwan as an independent member nation.

Both claims are partially true, as the WHO’s head did lavish praise on China in the early days of the Covid-19 outbreak, however the same was also true of Trump around the same time. On the issue of Taiwan, the WHOs policy is in line in the UN, its parent organisation, that admitting Taiwan would mean admitting there are two Chinese states something China is roundly against. 

Trumps pull out of the WHO might pose issues for groups beyond the WHO, Leeds University alone has 10 academics listed as having worked alongside the WHO in some capacity. To learn more about what Trump’s pull out means for Leeds students I sat down with Professor Garett Brown and Associate Professor Amy Russell to discuss their work with the WHO and what they think will happen after America pulls out.

I sat down first with Professor Brown who I asked if the withdrawal of American funding would affect the University of Leeds stated “The WHO gives very little money for research” “it has some research projects but it usually doesn’t give it [the funding] externally or they[WHO] partner with someone who has co financing” this was backed up by Dr Russell who stated in when I met her that “the WHO keeps a very small team…a lot of people come in as freelance and it collaborates strongly with organisations.” As a result Leeds University academics shouldn’t be too badly affected by the pull out of the WHO. 

This is not to say that the Trump administration’s actions won’t affect Leeds at all, as Professor Brown pointed out “What will affect academics work is if they get money from the national institute of health in the US” as the Trump administration had frozen funds to this body. Additionally, those academics whose work is tied in with charity organisations will likely suffer the pinch as Dr Russell pointed out “many of them have been in receipt of American funding… They don’t know what the future holds for them: if they’re going to get any more funding, if their organisations can exist anymore and if they can actually employ the people they employ currently.” This disorder as was pointed out by both academics seriously undercuts the capacity of these organisations to treat the issues they work on. 

When the topic of why they think Trump is doing this, Professor Brown stated “I have been speaking with various people in Trump’s ‘health’ circle over the last few months in an attempt to input some sanity, and most do not want to exit or “defund” the WHO, although they do want serious reforms” he then went on to highlight that while this was an inefficient method to achieve these reforms these actions could be seen as a way to generate leverage. But the future remains unknown. 

Words by Charlie Aldous