This article was originally published by Willow Tohi at Natural News. 

• • Following President Trump’s announcement of the U.S. withdrawal from the World Health Organization (WHO), the organization is desperately calling for donations on social media to fill a $706 million funding gap, representing 18% of its total revenue for the 2024-2025 budget cycle.

• • Trump signed an executive order on January 20, 2025, initiating a year-long withdrawal process as outlined in the 1948 congressional resolution. This move reflects growing frustration with the WHO’s perceived lack of accountability and financial burden on the U.S., which is the organization’s largest contributor.

• • In response to the funding shortfall, WHO has implemented stringent cost-cutting measures, including a hiring freeze, travel expense cuts, and halting capital investments. These measures will particularly impact key programs addressing HIV, AIDS, and tuberculosis, which heavily rely on U.S. voluntary contributions.

• • The U.S. withdrawal highlights the WHO’s controversial handling of the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly its perceived alignment with Chinese authorities. This includes praising China’s lockdown measures and accepting a lab-related origin conclusion only after Chinese pressure, despite lacking comprehensive data from China.

• • The U.S. withdrawal raises serious questions about the WHO’s future, as it now relies on the generosity of individual donors and member states. The organization’s survival may depend on collective responsibility rather than the largesse of a single nation, challenging its ability to address global health crises effectively.

In a move that could only be described as a desperate plea for relevance, the World Health Organization (WHO) has resorted to begging for donations on social media after President Donald Trump announced the United States’ withdrawal from the global health body. The decision, which came just hours into Trump’s second term, has left the WHO scrambling to fill a $706 million funding gap—a staggering 18% of its total revenue for the 2024-2025 budget cycle.

Maria Van Kerkhove, the WHO’s technical lead on COVID-19, took to X (formerly Twitter) on Thursday to ask the world for help. “Consider a donation to @WHO via the @WHOFoundation – One Dollar, One World #ProudToBeWHO,” she wrote, linking to a fundraiser with a lofty 1 billion goal. As of Friday afternoon, the campaign had raised a paltry 23,000—enough to fund a small-town bake sale but hardly a dent in the organization’s financial woes.

The U.S. exit: A long time coming

Trump’s executive order, signed on January 20, 2025, initiates a year-long withdrawal process as outlined in the 1948 congressional resolution that established U.S. membership in the WHO. The move is not without precedent. In 2020, during his first term, Trump announced a similar withdrawal, citing the WHO’s mishandling of the COVID-19 pandemic and its perceived deference to China. Although the Biden administration reversed that decision in 2021, Trump’s latest action underscores a growing frustration with the organization’s lack of accountability and disproportionate financial burden on the U.S.

The U.S. has long been the WHO’s largest contributor, providing both mandatory assessed payments and voluntary contributions. For the 2024-2025 budget cycle, the U.S. was expected to pay 264 million in assessed contributions and 442 million in voluntary funding. By contrast, China—the world’s second-largest economy—was set to contribute 181 million in assessed payments and a mere 2.5 million in voluntary funds. This disparity has been a sticking point for critics who argue that the WHO’s funding model unfairly penalizes wealthier nations while allowing others to shirk their responsibilities.

Cost-cutting measures and a hiring freeze

In response to the funding shortfall, WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus informed staff on Thursday that the organization would implement stringent cost-cutting measures. These include a hiring freeze—except for “critical positions”—and a halt to capital investments. Travel expenses will also be slashed, with all meetings to be held virtually unless otherwise approved.

The cuts are expected to hit key programs hard, particularly those addressing HIV, AIDS, and tuberculosis, which rely heavily on U.S. voluntary contributions. According to internal WHO documents, the U.S. accounts for 75% of global voluntary funding for HIV and AIDS programs and 61% for tuberculosis initiatives. Without American support, these programs face an uncertain future.

A history of controversy and deference to China

The executive order also highlights the WHO’s controversial handling of the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly its perceived alignment with Chinese authorities. During the early stages of the outbreak, WHO officials praised China’s strict lockdown measures as “the most ambitious, agile, and aggressive disease containment effort in history.” This statement, later amplified by Chinese state media, raised eyebrows among critics who accused the WHO of parroting Beijing’s propaganda.

A 2021 WHO mission to Wuhan to investigate the origins of the pandemic concluded that a lab-related origin was “extremely unlikely.” However, reports later revealed that this conclusion was included only after pressure from Chinese authorities. To this day, the WHO has yet to receive comprehensive data from China necessary to fully determine the virus’s origins. In a January 16 article in Science, Van Kerkhove acknowledged that the WHO has repeatedly requested critical information from China, including details about early COVID-19 cases and laboratory research involving coronaviruses. “To date, it has not received this information,” she wrote.

What’s next for the WHO?

The U.S. withdrawal raises serious questions about the WHO’s future. While international conventions require the U.S. to fulfill its financial obligations for the current fiscal year, enforcement mechanisms remain unclear. The WHO is already owed $130 million in assessed contributions for 2024, which were due earlier this month but have yet to be paid.

In the meantime, the WHO is left to rely on the generosity of individual donors and member states. But with only $23,000 raised so far, it’s clear that the world’s enthusiasm for funding the organization has waned. Whether this is a reflection of the WHO’s diminished credibility or simply a lack of public awareness remains to be seen.

One thing is certain: the WHO’s reliance on U.S. funding has long been a double-edged sword. While American dollars have enabled the organization to tackle global health crises, they have also allowed other nations to free-ride on U.S. generosity. As the WHO grapples with its new reality, it may finally be forced to confront the uncomfortable truth that its survival depends not on the largesse of a single nation but on the collective responsibility of all its members.

In the words of Van Kerkhove, it’s time for the world to come together—not to assign blame, but to collaborate. Whether the WHO can rise to the occasion remains to be seen. For now, it seems, the organization’s future is as uncertain as the origins of the pandemic that brought it to its knees.