The most powerful country on the planet has just ‘leaned out’ of global health. Will the Global South take the opportunity to ‘lean in’?
Yesterday, at a lunchtime talk at the World Health Organization (WHO) Headquarters in Geneva, Dr Madhukar (Madhu) Pai spoke on “Shifting Power in Global Health”. His presentation drew on ideas he had recently published (with Bandara and Kyobutungi) in the Lancet. The talk picked up on a consistent theme—the entrenched power of the Global North in global health—often white and male, but not necessarily.
One of the ideas Pai promoted was that of “allyship”. Rather than leading in global health fora, he suggested that Global North researchers, practitioners, and policymakers need to become allies of Global South counterparts. The role is to encourage and support those from the Global South in leadership.
In the online chat, one attendee wrote,
“I also want to challenge the notion of allyship. I think what we need is people with power and privilege to ‘lean out’ and make space at the table for folks with less power to exercise their leadership.
In other words, worry less about being an ally. Get out of the way, and people in the Global South will have the space to step in.
The comment was particularly pertinent given the stated intention of the United States (US) to withdraw from WHO. WHO is the global body with the most sweeping engagement in global health and the US was about the ‘lean out’—a perfect natural experiment.
The Executive Order (EO)—“WITHDRAWING THE UNITED STATES FROM THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION”—was signed by Donald Trump on his inauguration, 20 January, 2025.
Trump tried to withdraw from WHO in 2020. He left it too late, and Joe Biden was able to rescind the order. Not this time! The new EO also pauses support for WHO immediately. Section 2d of the EO states, in part:
(d) The Secretary of State and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall take appropriate measures, with all practicable speed, to:
(i) pause the future transfer of any United States Government funds, support, or resources to the WHO;
(ii) recall and reassign United States Government personnel or contractors working in any capacity with the WHO;
The decision to withdraw is very unwise—a disservice not only to people in the US but to the global community. It jeopardises lives both domestically and internationally. However, if the goal is for those with power and privilege to make room at the table for others to lead, this structural shift could enable that. If the US withdrawal is unavoidable, the focus should be on leveraging it for the greatest possible positive impact.
It remains to be seen how aggressively the US government will enforce the immediate pause of “funds, support, or resources” (S.2(d)(i)). What is clear, however, is that funding will likely cease swiftly. There may be a brief trickle as any existing commitments are untangled, depending on whether the new administration feels compelled to honour agreements made by its predecessor. Regardless, the relationship with WHO is effectively ending. The same applies to the expertise of government employees and contractors (S.2(d)(ii)), which the US will also withdraw.
But what about the “support or resources” mentioned in S.2(d)(i)? The US withdrawal from WHO could also extend to the engagement of US universities and research institutions. This could include collaborative projects involving third parties where US institutions and WHO are partners. The extent of the impact will largely depend on how far the Trump administration is willing to go. Given its history, it could act aggressively to enforce the directive and interpret it permissively.
At its most extreme, the administration could target funding to US universities and research institutions, arguing that any expenditure providing even nebulous “support or resources” to WHO is a violation. US Universities could be endangered if the funds they have received require approvals from the State Department or the Office of Management and Budget. A single dollar of perceived “support” might jeopardise tens of millions in funding for these institutions. The mere threat of such action could intimidate university administrators, compelling them to redirect activities and disengage from collaborations involving WHO (even tangentially).
We have already seen billionaires and news organisations engage in “anticipatory obedience”. Why would we imagine that universities would be any less callow?
The danger here is two-fold. The first problem, as identified by Wiyeh and Mukumbang in their Lancet letter responding to Pai’s article, is the question of capacity. If the US expertise from researchers, practitioners, and policymakers vanishes, how much of the resulting gap can realistically be filled by the Global South? If stakeholders from the Global South oppose the current power structures of global health, they must ‘lean in’ as the US ‘leans out’. While they cannot fill the void entirely, they may be able to occupy some of the vacated seats at the table.
The second issue is the risk of alternate state capture. Any nation willing to fill the funding void left by the US withdrawal could justify claiming significant influence at the tables previously dominated by the US. WHO must engage in careful and strategic negotiation to prevent one hegemon’s “leaning out” from enabling another to capture its place. The true goal is to diversify representation, and there is little to celebrate in simply replacing one dominant voice with another—from whatever geography they originate.
There is no joy in the US withdrawal from WHO. Working together, however, WHO and countries in the Global South could use this unsought “opportunity” to address structural flaws in the power distribution of global health. Ideally, other significant Global North countries working in global health will support these initiatives—or at least get out of the way. Following Wiyeh’s and Mukumbang’s suggestions, building leadership and technical capacity, amplifying diverse voices from the Global South, and prioritising equitable partnerships will not only strengthen WHO’s ability to adapt but also create a more inclusive and resilient global health system in the face of this challenge.