The United States formally withdrew from the World Health Organization on Wednesday, ending 78 years of membership in the global health body. Within hours, Governor Gavin Newsom announced California would become the first and currently only state to join the WHO’s Global Outbreak Alert & Response Network.
The timing was no coincidence. These dueling announcements crystallize a fundamental disagreement about how America should engage with the world on public health.
Two Visions of Public Health Leadership
The Trump administration’s case against the WHO centers on accountability. Officials point to the organization’s early handling of COVID-19, arguing the WHO delayed declaring a pandemic, parroted Chinese government talking points, and failed to acknowledge airborne transmission quickly enough. They contend the U.S. was paying 22 percent of the budget—an average of $237 million annually—for an organization that couldn’t demonstrate independence from political influence.
Health and Human Services Secretary Robert Kennedy Jr. and Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the U.S. would work instead with countries and “trusted health institutions” through bilateral arrangements.
Newsom sees it differently. He called the withdrawal “reckless” and said California “will not bear witness to the chaos this decision will bring.” By joining GOARN a network of laboratories, academic centers, and response organizations that coordinates rapid outbreak response. California is betting that international coordination matters, particularly for a state with Pacific Rim trade connections and 39 million residents.
The Practical Questions
Beyond the political theater, genuine uncertainties remain about how this plays out.
For the federal government, the immediate question is flu vaccines. The WHO convenes the meetings where experts select which influenza strains to include in next season’s shots. HHS officials haven’t committed to sending scientists to next month’s meeting. If the U.S. opts out of that process entirely, it’s unclear how American vaccine manufacturers will coordinate with global strain selection.
Disease surveillance is another concern. Infectious disease experts warn that without WHO’s coordinating role, comparing outbreak data across countries becomes difficult—different nations use different diagnostics, sample different populations, and report on different timelines.
For California, the question is whether a single state can meaningfully participate in global health networks designed for national governments. GOARN membership gives California access to outbreak intelligence and coordination mechanisms, but the state still operates within federal jurisdiction on matters like border health screening and drug approvals.
The Sovereignty Question
Underlying this dispute is a genuine philosophical divide about international institutions.
Critics of the WHO and there are legitimate ones across the political spectrum, note that the organization’s leadership has at times appeared deferential to member states with poor human rights records. The pandemic treaty negotiations that the U.S. has now abandoned would have given the WHO expanded authority during declared health emergencies, raising questions about who decides when such powers activate.
Supporters counter that diseases don’t respect borders, and some coordination mechanism is necessary. The 1948 Congress that authorized U.S. membership understood this; they also understood the risks, which is why they uniquely reserved America’s right to withdraw.
What to Watch
California isn’t stopping with GOARN. Newsom has launched the Public Health Network Innovation Exchange, joined the Governors Public Health Alliance with 14 other states, and formed the West Coast Health Alliance with Oregon, Washington, and Hawaii. Last fall, he signed legislation allowing California to base immunization guidance on independent medical organizations rather than the CDC.
Whether this amounts to a genuine parallel public health infrastructure or simply political positioning will become clearer if an actual outbreak tests these arrangements.
Meanwhile, the WHO says it hasn’t officially accepted the U.S. withdrawal and that member states will need to determine America’s status. The organization is also noting the U.S. owes $278 million in unpaid dues—money the Trump administration says it won’t pay.
The American flag still hangs at WHO headquarters in Geneva, at least for now. Both sides claim the other is being unreasonable about taking it down.
Some divorces are messier than others.
Sources:
- Office of Governor Gavin Newsom press release, Jan. 23, 2026
- U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, “Fact Sheet: U.S. Withdrawal from the World Health Organization,” Jan. 22, 2026 (hhs.gov)
- The Epoch Times, “US Officially Exits World Health Organization,” Kevin Stocklin, Jan. 22, 2026
- NPR, “The U.S. says its divorce from WHO is final on Jan. 22. Does WHO agree?” Jan. 20, 2026
- STAT News, “As U.S. withdraws from World Health Organization, health experts see big risks,” Jan. 22, 2026
- NBC News, “U.S. severs ties with WHO, raising concerns about flu epidemics,” Jan. 22, 2026
- Al Jazeera, “US officially withdraws from the World Health Organization,” Jan. 23, 2026
The Siskiyou News presents multiple perspectives on issues affecting our readers. This commentary examines a developing story with implications for public health policy at federal and state levels.
