The US Leaves the WHO and the Paris Agreement
In January 2026 the United States left the World Health Organization and, for the second time, the Paris climate agreement, removing the largest funder from global health and a top emitter from climate cooperation.
Topics: politics, environment, science and technology
Example
What happened: On 20 January 2025, his first day back in office, President Trump ordered the US to leave both the World Health Organization and the Paris Agreement. The WHO exit took effect on 22 January 2026; the US stopped all funding and recalled its staff. The US had given about US$111 million a year in dues and about US$570 million in voluntary funds. The Paris exit took effect on 27 January 2026, making the US the only country to leave the climate pact twice.
Use it for: international cooperation is fragile when it depends on the most powerful members, because one country leaving can remove money, expertise and credibility that others cannot easily replace.
Why it matters: the WHO and the Paris Agreement have no way to force a member to stay; they work only while members judge that staying serves them, so a change of government in one large country can undo years of cooperation.
Limit: Both exits are reversible by a future US government, as the first Paris exit was when the US rejoined in 2021, and other countries stayed in both bodies, so the case shows a strain on cooperation, not its collapse.
Key facts
- President Trump signed an executive order on 20 January 2025 to withdraw from the WHO, and the US formally exited on 22 January 2026.
- After the exit all US government funding to the WHO ended and US personnel were recalled from WHO offices; the US had given about US$111 million a year in dues and about US$570 million a year in voluntary contributions.
- The US exit from the Paris Agreement took effect on 27 January 2026, one year after notice was given, making it the only country to leave the pact twice.
How to use this example in a GP essay
Is international cooperation still possible in a divided world?
Claim
international cooperation is fragile when it depends on the most powerful members, because one country leaving can remove money, expertise and credibility that others cannot easily replace
How the evidence supports it
the WHO and the Paris Agreement have no way to force a member to stay; they work only while members judge that staying serves them, so a change of government in one large country can undo years of cooperation
Limitation
Both exits are reversible by a future US government, as the first Paris exit was when the US rejoined in 2021, and other countries stayed in both bodies, so the case shows a strain on cooperation, not its collapse.
Relevance
These are the two most-cited current shocks to cooperation, with exact dates students can quote and a clear counter that the rest of the world stayed.
Limitations
- Both exits are reversible by a future US government, as the first Paris exit was when the US rejoined in 2021, and other countries stayed in both bodies, so the case shows a strain on cooperation, not its collapse.
Evaluations
politics evaluation
Support
A single executive order removed the largest funder from the WHO and a top emitter from the Paris pact, showing that cooperation built over decades can depend on one leader's choice.
Counterargument
The US gave reasons, not just politics: it argued the WHO handled COVID-19 badly and resisted reform, so leaving can be read as pressure for accountability rather than rejection of cooperation.
Rebuttal
Pressure works best from inside: by leaving, the US also gave up its say over the reforms it wanted, which makes the exit a weak tool for fixing the problems it named.
Additional support
Other members stayed in both bodies, and WHO members adopted a Pandemic Agreement in May 2025 while the US was on its way out, which shows cooperation continuing without its largest funder.
environment evaluation
Support
Climate change is a shared problem, so a large emitter leaving the main agreement lets it free-ride on others' cuts and weakens the incentive for everyone else.
Counterargument
The first US exit in 2020 did not end US climate action: states, cities and firms kept cutting emissions, and the country rejoined in 2021.
Rebuttal
That history shows exits are reversible, but each one costs years; with the window for limiting warming closing, a second four-year gap is harder to make up.
Additional support
Being the only country to leave the Paris pact twice gives a clear, quotable fact for essays on whether global environmental agreements can bind powerful states.
science and technology evaluation
Support
The WHO pools disease data and expertise across borders; losing US scientists and funding reduces what it can do on outbreaks, vaccines and surveillance.
Counterargument
The US kept large health agencies of its own, so global health science did not lose US expertise entirely, only its channel through the WHO.
Rebuttal
Outbreaks cross borders before national agencies act, so science shared through one global body is faster and reaches poorer countries that cannot run their own labs.
Additional support
The US also stopped taking part in WHO technical working groups and committees, which is where shared standards for health science are set.
Sources
- US Department of Health and Human Services (CDC) (2026-02-23): HHS Fact Sheet: U.S. Withdrawal from the World Health Organization
- E&E News (Politico) (2026-01-27): So long, Paris: US officially leaves landmark climate pact