The Case for and Against Remaining in the World Health Organization

Roger Bate:

Whether the United States and Argentina should remain within the World Health Organization (WHO) is ultimately a question of trade-offs—between influence and independence, reform from within and reinvention from without. Both nations have committed to leave and will do so in 2026 after the one-year notice expires.

The arguments below are presented in parallel, not as advocacy but as analysis. They outline the strongest cases on both sides so that readers can weigh for themselves whether continued engagement or a strategic exit would better serve national interests, global health security, and political realism.

Five Strong Reasons for the United States and Argentina to Remain within the World Health Organization

1. Preserve access to the world’s early-warning and rapid-response infrastructure

The WHO operates two indispensable systems for disease control: the Epidemic Intelligence from Open Sources network, which aggregates early outbreak signals from across the globe, and the Global Outbreak Alert and Response Network, which mobilizes trained personnel and supplies during emergencies.

Membership keeps the United States and Argentina plugged directly into those systems and allows them to influence their technical design, data sharing rules, and reliability metrics. Re-creating such infrastructure outside the WHO would take years, cost billions of dollars, and almost certainly yield less comprehensive coverage. For countries that prize rapid detection and response, remaining inside means shaping how those global tools function rather than trying to replicate them from scratch.

2. Stay at the table where global health rules are written

 International treaties and technical standards—such as the International Health Regulations and the Pandemic Agreement—now determine how nations coordinate on data sharing, travel restrictions, and access to vaccines and medicines. These frameworks will continue to evolve whether or not the United States or Argentina participates.

Remaining members ensures both countries retain their seats, votes, and drafting authority. Leaving would mean accepting norms written by others, which could later constrain domestic law, trade, or intellectual-property practices. In global governance, rule-shaping is almost always more advantageous than rule-taking.

3. Use financial weight as leverage for reform

The United States provides roughly one-sixth of the WHO’s total revenue; Argentina is an influential mid-tier funder within the Pan American region. That financial contribution grants both governments practical leverage.

By remaining within the WHO, they can condition future payments on measurable improvements—public release of evidence behind emergency declarations, faster review cycles for medicine prequalification, and stronger conflict-of-interest disclosure. Withdrawal would forfeit that leverage without reducing the overall need to fund epidemic response somewhere. Staying converts fiscal power into negotiating power.

4. Maintain legitimacy and speed during crises

The WHO remains the only institution with global legitimacy to coordinate emergency deployments across borders. Even countries hostile to one another usually accept the WHO’s convening role during outbreaks, allowing rapid entry of teams that might otherwise face political delays.

For both Washington and Buenos Aires, remaining inside means their disease-control agencies can act through neutral WHO channels when speed and legitimacy matter most—especially in regions where bilateral action might be misread as geopolitical intrusion.

5. Pragmatic political reality: any future U.S. Democratic administration will rejoin

Leaving the WHO may satisfy current frustration, but it would likely be reversed by the next Democratic president, just as the U.S. rejoined the Paris Climate Agreement and the United Nations (UN) Human Rights Council. That cycle would squander continuity and credibility while signaling unpredictability to allies.

Staying, even conditionally, preserves bipartisan influence and prevents the kind of pendulum swings that confuse partners and reduce long-term leverage. A pragmatic conservative case for staying is to reform the Organization while holding the seat—rather than leave only to see a successor administration re-enter unconditionally.

Five Strong Reasons for the United States and Argentina to Consider Leaving or Downgrading Engagement with the World Health Organization

1. Protect national sovereignty and domestic decision-making

Although the WHO cannot legally dictate policy, its recommendations often evolve into quasi-binding international norms that influence trade, travel, and procurement decisions.

Critics argue that instruments such as the Pandemic Agreement and the amended International Health Regulations may create political or financial pressure for conformity, effectively limiting national discretion. Departing, or at least reducing participation, would make clear that elected governments—not global technocrats—set national health policy.

2. Counter persistent politicization and double standards

The WHO’s credibility has suffered from geopolitical bias, most notably its continued exclusion of Taiwan despite that country’s exemplary pandemic performance.
Political pressure from powerful member states can shape technical decisions, undermining the principle of scientific neutrality. Opponents of continued membership contend that meaningful reform is impossible while the WHO remains beholden to such politics, and that exit would send a stronger message about prioritizing transparency over diplomacy.

3. End inefficient and distorted financing

More than three-quarters of the WHO’s budget comes from narrowly earmarked voluntary donations rather than predictable core funding.

This patchwork financing rewards influence-seeking donors and produces weak accountability for results. Both the United States and Argentina could achieve more measurable outcomes by redirecting funds into regional partnerships—through the Pan American Health Organization or direct bilateral arrangements—without Geneva’s administrative overhead.

4. Escape institutional inertia and pursue faster innovation elsewhere

 Decades of internal reform efforts have yielded slow progress. Bureaucratic culture, consensus procedures, and entrenched staff interests make it hard to modernize data systems or streamline emergency approvals.

Critics suggest that new, purpose-built coalitions—linking G7 members, Latin-American neighbors, and African or Asian partners—could deliver more agile, transparent, and digitally advanced health cooperation at a fraction of WHO’s cost.

5. Pragmatic political reality: WHO is too captured to reform

From this viewpoint, entrenched alliances among major donors, staff unions, and advocacy networks make genuine reform virtually impossible. Each new transparency or accountability pledge is absorbed without changing incentives.

Therefore, proponents of withdrawal argue that it is better to invest in fresh institutions than to fight a losing bureaucratic battle. They note that even if the United States left, the Organization would likely remain dominated by the same narrow set of vested interests; departure at least avoids legitimizing a structure that will not change.