Trump's WHO Withdrawal: Head in the Sand, or Time to Act?

6 min read
3 Feb 2025

James Rayton, who previously worked as a UN contractor and has a background in leading development and humanitarian teams, shares his thoughts about the US's withdrawal from the World Health Organisation, and what you can do about it. Since the time of writing, Trump has suspended foreign aid and pulled federal support for nonprofits, making individual action even more pressing.


"While it’s not a substitute for government, I strongly believe ordinary individuals can play a vital role in filling aid gaps. This is especially important when governments can't — or won't — act."

- James Rayton, Head of Community at Giving What We Can and former UN contractor


In early 2024, I was based in Somalia, managing the UN’s response to El Niño flooding, which had displaced over 2 million people. Flooding reduces people’s ability to access clean water, which in turn leads to increases in cholera. In Somalia by the end of the flooding, over 13,000 cases had been reported and 122 people had died from the disease. It was my job to co-ordinate our response to the crisis, helping agencies such as UNICEF decide where the needs were most pressing and how to best deliver aid. This job would have been nearly impossible without the World Health Organisation’s (WHO) monitoring and surveillance work, its expertise, and the material resources it provided, like oral rehydration therapy.

A lot of us know of the WHO’s work from the Covid response, but the health teams I was working with in Somalia had been in regular contact with WHO staff for their entire working lives. In 2024 alone, the WHO helped manage MPox outbreaks from the DRC to the wider region and collaborated with the Rwandan government to contain a Marburg outbreak. Historically, the WHO also played a pivotal role in perhaps the greatest achievement in human history – the eradication of smallpox.

It’s a vast understatement to say I was saddened, therefore, to witness the Trump administration's withdrawal from the WHO on day one. This move will reduce the WHO’s funding by around 15% when it comes into effect in 2026, and likely severely reduce its ability to support responses similar to the one I was involved with in Somalia — just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the important work the WHO does. As malaria surges and pandemic risk becomes more salient, cutting funding for an agency that helps manage both sudden, acute emergencies (like disease outbreaks & pandemics) along with ongoing "silent" crises (like malaria prevention and control) seems like one of the least strategic decisions a leader could make.

However, I am determined not to bury my head in the sand. While it’s not a substitute for coordinated government effort, I strongly believe ordinary individuals can play a vital role in filling aid gaps. This is especially true when larger institutional donors such as the US government withdraw from supporting organisations like the WHO, leaving an even greater funding gap for important global health and pandemic preparedness initiatives.

It's important to acknowledge that this funding gap — while significantly worsened by the US's withdrawal — is not new. The scale of global health issues has long meant they currently can’t be solved by government agencies alone. Thus, several NGOs are already operating in these spaces. Many of these NGOs work with local governments in the countries they serve to deliver scalable, highly cost-effective global health programs based on evidence-backed interventions like malaria nets and water chlorination. Because these interventions are so cost-effective, individual donors can do more than might be expected to support these programs.

Of course, where you donate matters. Experts in global poverty and charity evaluation estimate that the best interventions aimed at helping the global poor are around 100x more cost-effective than average. An organisation is more cost-effective than another when it achieves more for the same amount of money. Part of our work at Giving What We Can, where I currently work as Head of Community & Partnerships, is empowering ordinary individuals with this information — reminding them of an astounding opportunity to help others that would have been unimaginable to most people throughout history, and providing a vetted list of our research team’s high-impact program recommendations.

Suggesting that individuals can step in where governments can't — or won't — might seem ludicrously inadequate. But the key is not the size of any single donation. It's rather about making strategic choices to support the most effective solutions to pressing global problems. By giving thoughtfully and intentionally, individual donors can create remarkable positive change in the world.

Take malaria prevention as a concrete example. Through the Against Malaria Foundation (AMF), individual donors have helped distribute over 200 million insecticide-treated bed nets, protecting hundreds of millions of people from malaria. Each net costs just $5 and protects two people for up to three years.

This straightforward, cost-effective intervention continues to save lives because individual donors recognize its incredible impact.

Is anything you can do enough to protect all people from malaria? Of course not. Would it be better if the US government did the job of funding important, cost-effective work like this rather than leaving it to the world's citizens? Absolutely.

But this doesn't change the fact that many, many more people are alive today thanks to the work of organisations like the Against Malaria Foundation, and thanks to the (even modest) donations of the ordinary people who support that work.

Additionally, when ordinary individuals join together, their collective impact can rival the impact of major institutions. Giving What We Can members have already donated over $276 million to highly effective charities, and have pledged nearly $3 billion more.

Since the average person gives very little to charity — despite their relative place in the world's income distribution — an increase in the number of ordinary people supporting high-impact programs could lead to a mindboggling amount of progress.

Is it fair to ask individuals to act instead of government and billionaires? No. It's not. But it's also not fair that, simply due to lottery of birth, some of us don't have to worry about our children dying from malaria or where the next meal will come from — and some of us do. So, for my part, I'm not going to stand by and do nothing just because it would be fairer if the government and billionaires acted instead.

In other words, instead of (or in addition to) pushing on people in power to make better choices, one thing we can control is our own actions. And if, like me, you’re worried about the gap this loss in WHO funding will mean for global health & pandemic preparedness, it’s reassuring to know that individual donors (like you and me) are helping fill critical gaps by supporting some of the most cost-effective organisations in global health and/or helping support crucial research & policy to guard against the next pandemic.

It’s easy to see news like the US government defunding the WHO and feel helpless. And indeed, taking a moment or two to grieve and be angry about this decision is legitimate and justified. But then it’s time to get our heads out of the sand.

Whether you do this by speaking out against the WHO withdrawal, voicing your concerns with relevant stakeholders, or simply reaching out to loved ones to offer emotional support, consider also donating today to some of the world's most effective organisations. Their critical work is now more important than ever. You might even consider taking a giving pledge to donate a meaningful portion of your income on an ongoing basis.

Together, we can create remarkable positive change in the world.