Warnings that U.S. withdrawal from the WHO will strengthen China raise the question of why American taxpayers should fund resistance that other member nations could organize themselves. Photo courtesy of the White House.
Warnings that America’s withdrawal from the World Health Organization will expand China’s influence raise a question for European governments: Why must American taxpayers finance the resistance to Beijing? Washington was the WHO’s largest donor, yet its contributions failed to resolve the administration’s concerns about Chinese influence. If European governments believe remaining in the organization can restrain China, they must explain how they intend to accomplish what they expected the United States to do.
The Trump administration refused on September 25, 2026, to back a UN political declaration on pandemic preparedness. By then, President Donald Trump had taken the United States out of the WHO, ended talks on the WHO Pandemic Agreement, and turned down changes to the International Health Regulations. To justify those moves, the administration pointed repeatedly to China’s sway over the organization.
At the September UN meeting, the U.S. representative opposed language in the declaration tied to pathogen access and benefit sharing, a framework still under negotiation, among other concerns. China’s delegate called for progress on the pandemic agreement and urged developed countries to provide financial and technological support to developing nations. The objections prevented adoption by consensus that day, leaving the declaration for further consideration by the General Assembly.
When the withdrawal became final on January 22, 2026, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. issued a joint statement saying all U.S. funding and staffing of WHO initiatives had ended. They accused the organization of obstructing the timely sharing of critical information and said public health cooperation would continue through direct partnerships with other countries and institutions.
The following day, Democrat representative Gregory Meeks, ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, warned that withdrawal would “grant China an unprecedented opportunity to assert greater influence.” Meeks also argued that leaving the organization would weaken America’s ability to prevent infectious diseases from reaching the United States.
Similar objections came from Europe during Trump’s first withdrawal attempt. In July 2020, Ulrich Lechte, then chairman of the German parliament’s UN subcommittee, criticized the withdrawal, arguing that Washington was giving in to China instead of confronting it within international organizations. His criticism placed responsibility on the United States to remain and resist Beijing, raising the question of what European members could accomplish themselves.
Those warnings must be considered alongside the funding Washington supplied while it remained a member. In 2022–2023, no donor gave the WHO more than the United States, which provided $1.284 billion. China contributed approximately $156 million, including about $115 million in assessed dues and $41 million in specified voluntary contributions. China’s contribution was approximately 88 percent less than America’s.
Despite that financial disparity, the Trump administration repeatedly accused the WHO of yielding to Beijing.
In a May 18 letter in 2020 to WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, Trump accused the organization of an “alarming lack of independence from the People’s Republic of China.” He said the WHO had ignored early reports of COVID-19 spreading in Wuhan, relied on Chinese government accounts, and praised China’s transparency despite reports that authorities had silenced doctors who spoke about the virus.
Trump’s letter also alleged that Taiwanese authorities had provided information indicating human-to-human transmission by December 31, 2019, but that the WHO had not shared it. Separately, then-Secretary of State Mike Pompeo condemned Taiwan’s exclusion from the World Health Assembly and said Tedros had declined to invite it under pressure from China. Taiwan had participated as an observer from 2009 to 2016.
Trump announced the termination of America’s relationship with the WHO in May 2020. His administration formally initiated withdrawal that July, but President Joe Biden reversed the decision in January 2021.
Trump restarted the withdrawal on January 20, 2025, with Executive Order 14155. The order pointed to the WHO’s pandemic response, its failure to reform, and its lack of independence from political influence. It also pulled the United States out of talks on the Pandemic Agreement and the International Health Regulations amendments.
In a May 20, 2025, World Health Assembly address, Kennedy said that while the United States had historically supplied much of the WHO’s funding, China had exerted undue influence over its operations.
That same day, Chinese Vice Premier Liu Guozhong announced an additional $500 million for the WHO over five years. He defended multilateral cooperation, supported the organization’s leading role, and warned that unilateralism and power politics threatened global health security.
The additional pledge averages $100 million annually, approximately 16 percent of the $642 million the United States contributed annually on average in 2022–2023. It does not replace the historical American contribution, although Beijing could gain greater influence without assuming Washington’s financial burden.
Rubio and Kennedy formally turned down the International Health Regulations amendments on July 18, 2025. They argued the changes did nothing to protect the WHO from political pressure and censorship during outbreaks, with China as the chief source.
A 2026 study suggested that China could become the WHO’s largest payer of mandatory member dues after America’s departure. The researchers identified additional avenues for Chinese influence, including placing more Chinese experts in WHO positions and using bilateral health partnerships to build support among developing countries.
The distinction between financial contributions and political influence matters. Under the WHO’s constitution, each member has one vote in the World Health Assembly, regardless of how much it contributes. American financial dominance therefore did not provide corresponding voting power.
Rubio and Kennedy framed their rejection of the amendments as a defense of America’s right to set its own health policy. Greater Chinese influence within the WHO does not itself give Beijing authority to dictate American health policy.
The argument for remaining rests on the claim that American participation can restrain Beijing. Yet the administration’s objections concerned Chinese influence while the United States was still a member and the largest donor. Critics of withdrawal must explain how continued participation would overcome the problems Washington cited, and why other members cannot organize that resistance themselves.
The post Warnings of Chinese WHO Takeover Strengthen the Case for US Withdrawal appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
