In early 2026 the United States’ longstanding relationship with the World Health Organization (WHO) reached a dramatic turning point as it formally completed its withdrawal from the global health body while also leaving behind hundreds of millions in unpaid membership dues. The issue has rapidly become a complex international finance, legal, and public health story — one with serious ramifications for global cooperation, epidemic response, and the stability of international institutions that have historically relied on U.S. support. This dispute is not just about money; it reflects deep disagreements over international governance, national sovereignty, and what role the United States chooses to play in multilateral organizations in the decades ahead.
The saga touches on foreign policy, U.S. domestic law, global public health infrastructure, and the operational viability of WHO itself. For many observers it raises urgent questions about whether a major global power can withdraw from a key agency without fulfilling its financial obligations — and what that means for the rest of the world. This article breaks down the timeline of events, the legal arguments in dispute, and the wider consequences of the unpaid dues crisis that has dominated headlines in early 2026.
Timeline of the United States’ WHO Withdrawal and Unpaid Dues
The sequence of events leading to the 2026 dues dispute stretches back to actions taken by the U.S. government beginning in 2020, which first froze funding to the WHO amid debates over the agency’s handling of the COVID-19 pandemic. After a reversal, when the U.S. rejoined, the issue resurged following the 2025 presidential transition. An executive order issued on the first day of the second Trump administration initiated a new withdrawal process.
Under the WHO Constitution, a member state must provide one year’s advance notice before withdrawal takes effect, and at the same time settle outstanding financial obligations. Although the United States served that notice in January 2025, it did not pay the assessed membership dues for the 2024–2025 and 2025–2026 periods, estimated at roughly $260 million to $278 million, depending on the accounting source. The withdrawal became official on January 22, 2026, with the unpaid dues still unresolved.
As a result, WHO leadership placed the U.S. dues issue on its Executive Board agenda and repeatedly emphasized that leaving the organization without settling its financial commitments is neither standard practice nor universally accepted under internal WHO rules.
Legal Challenges and Domestic Debates
The question of whether the United States can legally exit WHO without paying dues has sparked debate among legal scholars, public health advocates, and international law experts. Under U.S. law, treaties and international agreements — like those establishing membership obligations in WHO — typically require compliance with both domestic appropriations and international commitments unless Congress explicitly rescinds such obligations.
Critics argue that the Trump administration’s decision to withhold payments could violate statutes such as the United Nations Participation Act of 1945 and related appropriations laws, which generally require the U.S. to pay its assessed contributions to U.N. organizations unless Congress acts otherwise. Supporters of the non-payment contend that the president has broad discretion over foreign aid and international contributions in the interest of national security and policy reform goals.
Litigation has already started. Multiple U.S. NGOs and public health advocacy groups have filed suits in federal court, claiming that the unpaid dues and withdrawal effectively harm global disease surveillance and violate statutory obligations. The Justice Department has moved to dismiss these suits on grounds including sovereign immunity and political question doctrine — arguing that courts should defer to executive foreign policy decisions. Lower court rulings have produced partial injunctions, but appeals are likely to continue into 2027.
Internationally, the legal status of the U.S. exit is also unsettled. Some international law experts note that under the WHO Constitution and international custom, membership and withdrawal involve legal conditions that include payment of obligations. Yet enforcement mechanisms are limited: no global court can effectively compel the United States to pay without its consent, leaving the matter as a political and diplomatic dispute.
Impact on WHO Operations and Global Health
The unpaid dues crisis has had a direct fiscal impact on the WHO’s operational budget and planning. Before the U.S. departure, the United States accounted for about 18 percent of WHO’s total contributions, making it the single largest national donor. With those funds gone and debts uncollected, WHO has faced funding gaps that forced restructuring, cuts to personnel, and delays in key programs — including disease surveillance and emergency response capacities in parts of the world that depend heavily on coordinated support.
Experts warn that this shift risks degrading early warning systems for pandemics and other health emergencies, even affecting U.S. public health preparedness indirectly, as shared data streams and collaborative platforms diminish. Critics describe the U.S. move as creating an “information silo” that makes it harder to track and respond to emerging diseases globally.
Broader Worldwide Consequences
The repercussions extend well beyond WHO. At the United Nations level, unpaid U.S. dues are part of a larger crisis affecting multiple bodies, where arrears from the United States and other major contributors have pushed total unpaid contributions into the billions of dollars, risking severe budget constraints and service cutbacks across global institutions. UN officials have warned that without timely payments from key states, the world body could face liquidity shortages that undermine its ability to operate effectively.
This fiscal pressure is reshaping global geopolitics. Allies of the United States have expressed concern over reduced engagement, while other major contributors — such as China — are stepping up funding in ways that could shift the balance of influence within international organizations. Critics argue that this risks diluting established norms of global health governance and fragmenting cooperation at a time when collaborative responses are most necessary.
Conclusion — A Dispute With Deep Implications
The United States’ unpaid WHO dues in 2026 are more than a budgetary dispute. They are a flashpoint in broader debates over the future of multilateral cooperation, national sovereignty vs global responsibility, and how the world tackles shared threats like pandemics. With legal challenges still unfolding and international institutions struggling to bridge funding gaps, the consequences of this dispute are likely to stay in the spotlight throughout 2026 and beyond.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core dispute over the U.S. unpaid WHO dues?
The central issue is whether the United States can exit WHO without paying approximately $260 million in assessed membership contributions that were due for the 2024–2025 and 2025–2026 periods, as required by WHO and U.S. legal obligations.
When did the U.S. officially withdraw from WHO?
The withdrawal became effective on January 22, 2026, after a one-year notice period following the executive order issued in January 2025.
Why does WHO say unpaid dues matter?
Unpaid dues disrupt the agency’s budget and ability to coordinate global health efforts, potentially weakening disease surveillance and emergency responses worldwide.
Is there legal action over the unpaid dues?
Yes. Multiple lawsuits in U.S. courts challenge the non-payment under federal law, and some legal scholars argue the non-payment may violate international commitments, though enforceability remains complex.
How could this affect global health cooperation?
Without full funding and U.S. participation, WHO programs may be scaled back, and international collaboration on outbreaks may weaken, affecting response times and preparedness for future pandemics.