The History of Failed Exits

On the first day of his second administration (20 January 2025), President Trump signed an Executive Order to “withdraw the US from the World Health Organization (WHO).” 

This won’t be the first time for the United States (US) to leave a United Nations (UN) entity. Quite the contrary. It has been out but then back like a yoyo, leaving no lasting mark on relevant organizations. Will this time be different?

The recent history of the United States (US) and specific multilateral entities belonging to the UN system is quite tumultuous. Like the complexity of human relationships, it features dissatisfactions, fallouts, threats, divorces, and remarriages. These chapters correspond to changes in American administrations. With Trump’s second term, the withdrawal from the WHO was not unexpected, based on his previous positions during the Covid-19 crisis. 

The US is undoubtedly a heavyweight in the UN system, thanks to its important financial contributions, economic power, overseas aid distributed through domestic institutions and bilateral channels, and of course, its population weight and its genuine desire to make the rest of the world better. It contributes an impressive 22% of the UN’s regular budget. In addition, since the creation of the UN, it is also the top voluntary contributor keeping the system afloat. It is the top direct contributor to the WHO’s 2024-25 budget, at 15% ($500 million per year). China pays just 0.35%. 

The US has also made its diplomatic displeasures heard multiple times in international arenas in the past, reflecting its current stated intent to withdraw from the WHO. Most remarkably, these have been evident in its relations with the UN Human Rights Council (HRC) and the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). 

Withdrawal from and Return to the HRC

In 2006, the HRC was created as a subsidiary body of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) to replace the Human Rights Commission. Headquartered at the UN Office in Geneva (Switzerland), it is composed of 47 members elected for 3-year terms by the 193 Member States of the UNGA. One-third of the members are renewed each year, and countries can serve a maximum of two consecutive terms. Hence, roughly, one-third of UN Member States are in the HRC at any time. Election is by regional groupings and extremely prone to politicization. This has undoubtedly compromised its mandate of protecting and promoting human rights.

The HRC works through cycles of Universal Periodic Review where all UN Member States are periodically assessed, appoints the Special Procedures (independent human rights experts for specific countries or themes), authorizes commissions of inquiry and fact-finding missions on war crimes and crimes against humanity, and holds crisis meetings in emergencies. Resolutions or decisions require a simple majority, and membership can be suspended by a two-thirds majority (as happened with Libya in 2011 and currently with Russia). 

The relationship between the US and the HRC has long been difficult. The US (together with Israel, Palau, and the Marshall Islands) voted against the original UNGA resolution creating the HRC. Nevertheless, the US joined in 2009 under the Obama administration, reflecting a change in position as it had preferred to be an observer to the now-defunct Human Rights Commission during the George W Bush administration. 

The US continued to voice its criticisms regarding HRC’s alleged politicization on many issues, notably related to a high number of resolutions adopted against Israel. For instance, in February 2011, at the 16th session of the HRC, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton pointed at “the structural bias against Israel – including a standing agenda item for Israel,” which “undermine(d)” the HRC’s work.

In October 2011, Palestine was admitted as a full member by UNESCO. A year later, the UN General Assembly (UNGA) adopted Resolution 67/19 on the “Status of Palestine in the United Nations” by 138 approved votes, 3 abstentions, 5 absences, and 9 rejections (including the US). Palestine thus became a non-member observer State to the UNGA – a similar status conferred to the Vatican. This was widely seen as a formalization of the statehood of Palestine. Successive HRC resolutions (A/HRC/RES/16/30 of 25 March 2011, A/HRC/RES/19/15 of 22 March 2012, etc.) on the Palestine-Israel issue have repeatedly called for “the two-State solution,” while the US has unsuccessfully stood, either alone or with few allies, against all other HRC members.

In March 2018, a further Resolution A/HRC/RES/37/75 condemned Israel’s past and present actions against Palestinians. On 19 June, the Trump administration decided to exit. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo laid out several reasons, like: i) HRC membership included authoritarian governments with unambiguous and abhorrent human rights records, and ii) HRC’s continued and well-documented bias against Israel. The US Ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley, added that “for too long, the Human Rights Council has been a protector of human rights abusers and a cesspool of political bias.” Haley further stated that she had led the US efforts to try to reform the HRC for a year; however such efforts had failed due to resistance of many countries but also allies’ reticence to challenge the status quo. 

The exit was swiftly reversed by the Biden administration. On 8 February 2021, Secretary of State Anthony Blinken announced that the US re-engaged “immediately and robustly” with the HRC. A few weeks later, at the 46th Session of the HRC on 24 February 2021, Blinken requested peer support for the US to return and seek election for the HRC 2022-24 term. It was subsequently elected and back on the Council.

US Withdrawals and Returns to UNESCO

Although the US was a founding member of UNESCO, the relationship has been bumpy. The Reagan administration left UNESCO in 1984 officially “because of a growing disparity between US foreign policy and UNESCO goals.” The UK’s Thatcher administration also left UNESCO in 1985.

The UK returned in 1997 and the US in 2003 under the George W Bush administration. Singapore also left in 1985, only to return 22 years later.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict again triggered further disagreements. As mentioned above, UNESCO’s General Assembly voted in October 2011 to welcome the State of Palestine as its 195th member, despite its mere “observer entity” status at UNGA at the time. As a consequence (as feared by UNESCO Director-General Irina Bokova and UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon), the Obama administration froze its contributions equivalent to 22% of UNESCO’s regular $1.5 billion budget, and all support for UNESCO’s voluntary programs. Israel, a member since 1948, left soon after.

The Trump administration then quit altogether in 2019, by which time the US had accumulated an estimated $600 million in unpaid dues.

The US formally rejoined UNESCO in 2023 under the Biden administration and celebrated with a flag-raising ceremony at UNESCO headquarters in Paris and a dinner reception with First Lady Jill Biden at the US Embassy. The return depended on a majority vote of UNESCO members, and the US agreed to pay all arrears totaling $619 million and fund specific voluntary programs as negotiated with UNESCO (African projects, freedom of journalists, etc.). To this day, Israel remains an outsider despite UNESCO’s invitation to return, perhaps wishing to avoid the apparent humiliation imposed on the US.

US and the WHO: a Strained Relationship at the Beginning of Covid-19

The US was one of the founding members of the WHO. On 14 June 1948, Congress adopted the Joint Resolution “providing for membership and participation by the US in the WHO and authorizing an appropriation therefor” (80th Congress, 2nd session, CH, 460 – JUNE 14,1948) to authorize the President to accept US membership of WHO. It also noted that:

“Sec. 4. In adopting this joint resolution the Congress does so with the understanding that, in the absence of any provision in the WHO Constitution, the US reserves its right to withdraw from the organization on a one-year notice: Provided, however, That the financial obligations of the US to the Organization shall be met in full for the Organization’s current fiscal year.”

The WHO Constitution does not contain any withdrawal provision, like most of the founding texts of UN entities born immediately after the Second World War. Thus, the US Congress made clear that it can withdraw from the WHO, through a formal 12-month notification providing its due contributions are acquitted. These provisions are consistent with practices codified later by the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which allows parties to leave an international agreement (Articles 54 and 56).

During the first year of Covid-19, on 29 May 2020, President Trump announced that the US would be leaving the WHO. The formal procedure was triggered on 6 July by a diplomatic letter sent to both the WHO’s Geneva headquarters and UN New York offices, citing the WHO’s failures in response to Covid-19 and other recent health crises, and its unwillingness to reform. At the time, the US still had an outstanding balance due of $198 million.

Things did not go as planned. The Biden administration reversed the situation half a year later, not only aborting the withdrawal process triggered by Trump but also increasing US engagement with the WHO. The US then proposed the 2022 amendments to the 2005 International Health Regulations (IHR), reducing the period for new amendments to enter into force from 24 months to 12 months, and the period to make reservations from 18 months to 10 months. It was also the country actively involved in the drafting and negotiations of the 2024 amendments to the IHR that will hobble all countries’ health budgets and resources to spend on early detection of future pandemics rather than more rational priorities. 

On 20 January 2025, President Trump opened his second term by ordering:

“Section 1. Purpose. The United States noticed its withdrawal from the World Health Organization (WHO) in 2020 due to the organization’s mishandling of the COVID-19 pandemic that arose out of Wuhan, China, and other global health crises, its failure to adopt urgently needed reforms, and its inability to demonstrate independence from the inappropriate political influence of WHO member states. In addition, the WHO continues to demand unfairly onerous payments from the United States, far out of proportion with other countries’ assessed payments. China, with a population of 1.4 billion, has 300 percent of the population of the United States, yet contributes nearly 90 percent less to the WHO.

Sec. 2. Actions. (a) The United States intends to withdraw from the WHO. The Presidential Letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations signed on January 20, 2021, that retracted the United States’ July 6, 2020, notification of withdrawal is revoked.”

Section 2(a) of the Executive Order seems to try to make the 6 months already passed since the first withdrawal notification (6 July 2020) still count. It translates Trump’s wish to complete what he had started as soon as possible. It is not clear whether this argument may be accepted, or whether the new notification will retrigger the withdrawal process again, though Congress could vote to shorten the period required. Regardless, this time, the Trump administration has plenty of time to complete a withdrawal.

But for how long? Who can ensure that the next administration will hold onto this position? Or will history simply repeat itself as in the quick and humiliating returns to the HRC and UNESCO with full back pay for the years of absence and without necessary reforms?

Stay or Quit?

As demonstrated above, it has become habitual that these policies are reversed with little public attention. Leaving arguments on their rightness or wrongness aside, the decisions to step out of the HRC and UNESCO under the Trump 1.0 administration were both quickly dismantled. Each time, the momentum was lost, as was the time, money, and posture. Hence, if the Trump 2.0 administration actually leaves the WHO this time, the outcome may well be nullified in the near future. 

The French people say “qui va à la chasse perd sa place” (he who goes hunting loses his seat) for a reason. Perhaps it might be better, after all, for the US to use its current position and time to work for real reform, so as not to lose this opportunity. 

Right now, the Trump administration has many solid arguments and allies to demand a serious assessment of WHO actions and inactions during Covid, its poorly evidenced approach to pandemics in general, and seize the momentum for change. There are real opportunities to reassess, reform, or even replace the organization with another one, to make changes not easily undone by future administrations. This would provide real and lasting impact for Americans and the globe.