Contents

Introduction 

History 

World Health Organisation (WHO): Origins and achievements 

President Trump: The path to withdrawal from the World Health Organisation (WHO) 

Pharma's Place: How the pharmaceutical industry and WHO have functioned together 

President Trump & the WHO: The impact on pharma and drug development 

Introduction to the debates 

Market Dynamics & Industry Growth 

Domestic vs. Global Health Priorities 

Regulatory Autonomy & International Market Access 

Financial & Market Stability 

Conclusion  

References 

Introduction

Shortly after his inauguration, President Donald J. Trump followed through on his long-standing criticism of the World Health Organisation (WHO) by signing an executive order withdrawing the United States from the organisation. [1]

His decision has sparked debate among health experts, policymakers and business leaders, particularly within the pharmaceutical industry.

Supporters argue that the withdrawal reduces bureaucratic inefficiencies, reallocates financial resources towards domestic health priorities and grants US regulatory agencies greater autonomy, leading to faster and cheaper drug development. [2] Critics however, warn that disengagement from WHO-led initiatives could disrupt global health cooperation, hinder disease surveillance, create challenges for pharmaceutical companies in international markets and disproportionately affect lower-income countries. [3, 4]

In this article, we’ll explore both sides of the argument, starting with the historical role of the WHO, the motivations behind President Trump's withdrawal and the nature of the WHO-Pharma relationship, where we’ll then examine its potential impact on the pharmaceutical industry. 

By analysing regulatory, public health and financial implications, we aim to provide a balanced, fact-based assessment of how this policy shift may reshape the pharmaceutical landscape, without political motive or bias.

History

To understand the implications of President Trump’s decision, it’s essential to first examine the WHO’s role in global health, President Trump's path to withdrawal and the pharmaceutical industry's involvement with the WHO.

World Health Organisation (WHO): Origins and achievements

The WHO was established in 1948 as a United Nations specialised agency dedicated to global health cooperation. [5] Since then, it has played a critical role in coordinating vaccine programs, combating infectious diseases and setting international medical standards.

It has achieved this by partnering with pharmaceutical companies to develop and distribute treatments for malaria, tuberculosis, HIV/AIDS, Covid-19 and more. [6] Further, its Essential Medicines List (EML) has helped standardise drug availability worldwide and initiatives like COVAX have ensured impartial vaccine distribution. [7, 8]

However, the WHO has faced criticism over its reliance on pharmaceutical funding, corporate influence and allegations of political bias, concerns that President Trump cited in his decision to withdraw. [9, 10]

President Trump: The path to withdrawal from the World Health Organisation (WHO)

In April 2020, President Trump halted US funding to the WHO, citing its mishandling of the Covid-19 pandemic and alleged over-reliance on Chinese data - this decision was reversed by President Joe Biden after his 2020 election win. [11]

Upon returning to office in 2025, President Trump formalised the withdrawal via an executive order, arguing that the WHO had failed to implement necessary reforms and had become too politically influenced by member states, particularly China. [12]

President Trump also pointed to disparities in WHO funding, arguing that China, despite having a population over four times that of the US, contributed significantly less to the organisation’s budget. [13] While the exact financial imbalance is debated, President Trump argued that this discrepancy justified the withdrawal - reiterating his first term's concerns about financial fairness, particularly when he criticised NATO countries for not contributing a comparable percentage of their GDP towards national defence spending. [14]

Critics, however, argue that disengagement weakens US influence in shaping global health policy, reduces access to WHO-coordinated disease surveillance and heightens global health risks. [15] While the WHO is hoping for constructive dialogue to maintain the partnership, experts, such as Dr. Michael Osterholm, say that by pulling out and removing the huge amount of money that the US gives, you’re not allowing the WHO to make the required reforms. [16]

Pharma's Place: How the pharmaceutical industry and WHO have functioned together

The WHO has long collaborated with pharmaceutical companies for drug development, vaccine distribution and global health initiatives, with programs such as the EML and COVAX shaping international drug accessibility and pricing. [17, 18]

However, this relationship hasn't been without controversy. Some critics argue that pharmaceutical influence within the WHO has led to high drug prices, preventing access to lifesaving treatments. [19] Further, during the 2009 H1N1 pandemic, members of the Council of European resolution, questioned whether pharma’s influence may have contributed to governments making inefficient vaccine investments, stating that it led some to “squander tight health care resources for inefficient vaccine strategies." [20]

The Covid-19 pandemic recently reignited criticisms, with some arguing that “pharmaceutical companies tragically failed to rise to the challenge of a once-in-a-century global health and human rights crisis.” [21] This reliance also partly drove President Trump's concerns about the inefficiencies and corporate favouritism within the WHO. [22]

The history however, raises the question: Will US disengagement from the WHO benefit or harm the pharmaceutical sector?

President Trump & the WHO: The impact on pharma and drug development

Introduction to the debates

The US withdrawal from the WHO in 2025 sparked discussions about its impact on the pharmaceutical industry. While some anticipate an environment that fosters domestic investment and regulatory flexibility, others warn of global collaboration disruptions and market access challenges. [23, 24]

Market Dynamics & Industry Growth

Some hypothosise that the impact on market dynamics from leaving the WHO may be positive, with the shift increasing focus on US-based domestic healthcare priorities, creating new market opportunities and revenue streams for US-based pharmaceutical companies. [25] With fewer international constraints, companies may also gain more autonomy in research, potentially accelerating drug approvals. [26]

Additionally, the administration has signalled its intent to re-evaluate industry regulations by addressing pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs), which some blame for rising drug prices. [27]
By shifting regulatory scrutiny away from manufacturers and towards intermediaries, a potential re-evaluation could improve profit margins and investor sentiment.

At the same time, the administration’s pro-business tax policies may encourage greater investment in R&D, with supporters of the withdrawal arguing that the financial incentives will foster innovation, particularly for high-cost, high-risk therapies. [28]

Deregulatory policies may also facilitate mergers and acquisitions (M&As) within the biotech industry, reversing the downturn seen in 2024’s sluggish market and expanding pipelines for mid-to-large pharma companies. [29] Increased consolidation could also provide smaller biotech companies with greater access to capital, accelerating breakthroughs in emerging therapeutic areas. 

While regulatory flexibility may accelerate approvals and strengthen the US market, diverging too far from internationally recognised frameworks could create challenges in securing approvals in foreign markets, particularly in Europe and Asia. [30]

Domestic vs. Global Health Priorities

With the WHO’s contributions reallocated, the administration has emphasised its commitment to strengthening domestic healthcare initiatives. Redirecting funds towards US-based biotech innovation and public health challenges, may benefit pharmaceutical companies that align their research priorities with national health objectives, notably through innovation grants. [31]

However, the withdrawal may also reshape US engagement in global health efforts, particularly in addressing world health emergencies. [33] The WHO has historically coordinated vaccine distribution, infectious disease surveillance and international clinical trials. [34] Without US participation, some companies may experience disruptions in research collaborations or delays in accessing critical health data, particularly in malaria, tuberculosis and other emerging diseases. [35]

Regulatory Autonomy & International Market Access

US pharmaceutical companies may find greater flexibility in domestic regulatory decisions following the withdrawal. [36] Freed from WHO-aligned drug approval frameworks, the FDA may implement independent standards, accelerating the approval processes for therapies that do not require global coordination. [37] This could enable faster market entry for US-developed treatments that are solely focused on domestic market needs, particularly in specialised fields such as infectious diseases, rare diseases and oncology.

However, the shift away from the WHO may introduce challenges in securing global market access. [38] Many countries rely on WHO-backed regulatory frameworks for drug approval, standardisation and classification. Exiting WHO-aligned systems, such as the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) and global drug-naming conventions, may complicate international regulatory approvals. [39]

Without alignment to WHO standards, companies could also face additional compliance hurdles when entering foreign markets, slowing drug approvals and affecting global vaccine preparedness. Some middle-income countries may also respond by tightening patent licensing requirements, especially during health emergencies, making it harder for US companies to expand their global reach.

Additionally, concerns over intellectual property (IP) protections may arise. The US has historically advocated for strong pharmaceutical patent rights in global trade negotiations which has preserved long-term profitability. [40] Disengagement from WHO-led health initiatives may weaken US influence over global IP policies whilst reducing global medicine accessibility, particularly during a health crisis. [41] The risk of a health crisis is echoed by Amesh Adalja, who says that without full situational awareness of infectious disease outbreaks, the ability of the CDC to be most effective in global health will be dramatically hampered. [42]

This could leave the door open for a major shift in global health leadership dynamics, allowing nations such as China, which has already heavily invested in health research, tools and resources, to take on a larger role in global health standards, something that experts have said, is not in America's best interests. [43]

Financial & Market Stability

The long-term financial impact of the withdrawal on pharmaceutical markets remains uncertain. While some predict that reduced regulatory constraints and tax incentives may attract greater investment in US biotech, trade uncertainties, including tariffs on pharmaceutical imports and supply chain disruptions, could impact costs and availability. [44]

US pharmaceutical companies rely on global supply networks for active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) and raw materials. Policy shifts, such as tariffs on China (10%), Canada/Mexico (25%) and those expected to hit the European Union (EU), may increase production costs and cause shortages. [45] However, some argue that these pressures could encourage the reshoring of pharmaceutical production, strengthening domestic supply chains and benefiting US-based contract development and manufacturing organisations (CDMOs).

Additionally, market analysts have noted that investor sentiment towards vaccine developers and global health initiatives could fluctuate. This was evident after President Trump’s victory over Kamala Harris in 2024, with biotech stocks falling by 15%. [46] Similar trends emerged when Robert F. Kennedy Jr. was announced as head of Health and Human Services, causing Moderna’s share price to drop by nearly 7%, Pfizer’s by 4.5% and both AstraZenecas and GSKs by more than 3%. [47]

That said, some market analysts also notice a generally optimistic environment, with the number of biotech IPOs steadily increasing over the last two years. [48] Trust in big pharma has also risen, with 49 percent of people viewing the pharmaceutical industry more positively than before the Covid-19 pandemic. [49] Additionally, renewed interest in immunology, oncology, antibody technology and obesity drugs, such as Eli Lilly's Orforglipron, has fueled expectations for the next major "breakthrough" therapies, driving sustained investor interest in the industry. [50, 51, 52]

At the same time however, Argentina has announced its withdrawal from the WHO, with President Javier Milei citing dissatisfaction with the organisation's handling of the Covid-19 response. [53] Their withdrawal signals a broader shift in global health dynamics, echoing President Trump’s move. In response, the WHO has begun diversifying its funding sources, strengthening financial ties with the European Union, China and private donors to offset the loss of US and Argentinian contributions. [54] These shifts have the potential to impact global pharmaceutical approval processes, particularly if WHO-backed clinical trials and regulatory frameworks become more aligned with European or Chinese standards, making market access more challenging for US-based companies.

Despite the benefits and uncertainties, US pharmaceutical companies will need to adapt to an evolving global regulatory landscape. While the withdrawal may grant greater autonomy in domestic policy, it also raises questions about long-term competitiveness in international markets and sustained investment. The industry’s ability to balance regulatory independence with global market access, while maintaining public and investor confidence, will therefore be key to its future stability.

Conclusion

President Trump’s withdrawal from the WHO marks a major shift in global health policy with significant implications for the pharmaceutical industry. While it may lower drug costs, boost domestic production, accelerate approvals and encourage mergers, it also risks disrupting international market access, complicating regulatory approvals and limiting the ability of US-based companies to respond to global health emergencies.

With Argentina leaving the WHO and speculation that more nations may follow, plus President Trump hinting at a possible reversal, the future remains uncertain. Meanwhile, the WHO is diversifying its funding and strengthening financial ties with the EU, China and private donors, potentially reshaping global R&D and moving the US away from being the global health leader.

The long-term impact will depend on how the industry adapts. As with any major policy shift, both risks and opportunities will emerge, shaped by economic, political and industry-driven factors, requiring the industry’s careful navigation and assessment in the years ahead.

References

[1 & 13] - https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/withdrawing-the-united-states-from-the-worldhealth-organization/

[2, 23, 25, 26, 29, 32 & 36] - https://www.pharmamanufacturing.com/all-articles/article/55262884/trumps-impact-on-biopharma-industry-may-be-a-net-positive-in-his-new-term

[3, 15 & 16] - https://time.com/7208937/us-world-health-organization-trump-withdrawal/

[4, 6, 35 & 43] - https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/1/28/what-a-us-exit-from-the-who-means-for-global-healthcare

[5 & 34] - https://www.who.int/about/history

[7 & 17] - https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/WHO-MHP-HPS-EML-2023.02

[8 & 18] - https://www.who.int/initiatives/act-accelerator/covax#:~:text=COVAX%20was%20the%20vaccines%20pillar,tests%2C%20treatments%2C%20and%20vaccines.

[9] - https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1801033/

[10 & 22] - https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2025-01-22/what-is-the-world-health-organization-and-why-does-trump-want-to-leave-it

[11] - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-53327906f

[12] - https://www.npr.org/sections/goats-and-soda/2025/01/22/g-s1-44066/trump-world-health-organization

[14] - https://www.thetimes.com/article/e621220e-dbc2-11e6-a7b1-3a60b507a068

[19 & 21] -  https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/02/covid-19-pharmaceutical-companies-failure-on-equal-vaccine-access-contributed-human-rights-catastrophe-in-2021/

[20] - https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/h1n1-2009-pandemic-influenza/health-officials-experts-reject-false-pandemic-charges

[24] - https://www.healio.com/news/infectious-disease/20250121/trump-signs-order-withdrawing-us-from-who-endangering-health-everywhere

[27] - https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/insurer-stocks-fall-after-trump-says-were-going-knock-out-middleman-2024-12-16/

[28 & 44] - https://www.spglobal.com/ratings/en/research/articles/241112-credit-faq-how-president-elect-trump-s-tax-proposals-could-affect-u-s-companies-in-2025-13319346

[30 & 38] - https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4840793/

[31] - https://www.cms.gov/priorities/innovation/innovation-models/health-care-innovation-awards

[33] - https://www.healthaffairs.org/content/forefront/unraveling-progress-us-exit-and-its-global-consequences

[37] -  https://www.mcguirewoods.com/client-resources/alerts/2025/1/rethinking-fdas-accelerated-approval-pathway-new-draft-guidances-and-implications-for-drug-companies/

[39] - https://www.who.int/standards/classifications/classification-of-diseases

[40 & 41] - https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1111/jlme.12014

[42] - https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/covid-19/trump-issues-order-withdraw-us-who

[45] - https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/02/fact-sheet-president-donald-j-trump-imposes-tariffs-on-imports-from-canada-mexico-and-china/

[46] - https://www.investors.com/news/technology/biotech-stocks-donald-trump-inauguration/

[47] - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cp3nzp782ejo

[48] - https://www.pharmavoice.com/news/pharma-trends-outlook-2025/738839/

[49] - https://www.wns.com/perspectives/articles/articledetail/220/top-4-pharmaceutical-industry-trends-in-2025

[50] - https://www.pharmamanufacturing.com/industry-news/news/55269723/eli-lilly-undertakes-significant-manufacturing-expansion-initiatives-to-shore-up-supply

[51] - https://www.biospace.com/will-oral-weight-loss-drugs-break-open-an-already-lucrative-market

[52] - https://www.pharmamanufacturing.com/development/clinical-trials/news/55055974/sanofi-cd38-antibody-delivers-in-phase-3-trial

[53] - https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/feb/05/javier-milei-argentina-who

[54] - https://www.aa.com.tr/en/americas/explainer-what-does-trumps-withdrawal-from-the-who-mean-for-global-health/3459506