California leaders brace as U.S. completes withdrawal from WHO; Sacramento probes ways to keep direct access to global outbreak data
On January 22, 2026, the United States formally withdrew from the World Health Organization after a one-year notice, ending membership, funding and participation in WHO efforts — a move that raises urgent questions about access to global outbreak data and cooperation.
Key takeaways
- The U.S. completed its WHO exit on Jan. 22, 2026, citing the agency’s COVID-19 response and lack of reforms — the action follows Executive Order 14155 signed Jan. 20, 2025. HHS • CDC
- The administration favors bilateral partnerships for disease surveillance and response rather than multilateral WHO channels. HHS
- WHO says financial obligations remain and may not consider the withdrawal final until dues are resolved; the matter goes to the Executive Board Feb. 2, 2026. WHO statement
Main content
Key information
The core facts:
- The U.S. completed its formal exit from the World Health Organization on Jan. 22, 2026, one year after President Donald Trump signed Executive Order 14155 on Jan. 20, 2025. The administration cited the WHO COVID-19 response and other concerns as reasons for withdrawal. HHS • CDC
- The administration says it will pursue bilateral cooperation with other countries on disease surveillance and public health efforts instead of working through the WHO. HHS
- The WHO says the United States still owes funds and that the exit may not be considered complete until financial obligations are settled; WHO officials will address the matter at the Executive Board meeting beginning Feb. 2, 2026. WHO statement
- Public health experts warn the move could slow U.S. access to early outbreak signals, flu strain monitoring, polio eradication work and other global health functions; critics call the withdrawal “shortsighted” and “scientifically reckless.” ABC News • CIDRAP
- No independent reporting to date confirms public plans by Gov. Gavin Newsom to plug California directly into global disease-tracking networks; available federal and international reporting focuses on the national withdrawal and its fallout. CDC • ABC7
What the federal action means
The Trump administration completed the one-year notice required under WHO rules, ending U.S. membership, votes in governance bodies, funding, and U.S. participation in WHO technical groups and initiatives, including the Global Influenza Surveillance and Response System. Officials said the WHO had delayed sharing critical information during the COVID-19 pandemic and had been resistant to reforms the U.S. sought. CDC summary • ABC7
U.S. health and state departments say they will maintain some limited cooperation with WHO where necessary, but the administration’s preferred model is direct, bilateral partnerships with other nations for disease surveillance, vaccine development coordination, and emergency response. A senior government health official told reporters the U.S. has “no plans to participate as an observer, and we have no plans of rejoining.” HHS • ABC News
Financial dispute with WHO
A central point of contention is money. WHO officials say the U.S. left with outstanding dues estimated in various reports at more than $130 million and possibly as high as $278 million for 2024–2025. WHO says members must settle financial obligations before a withdrawal is treated as final under WHO rules. The U.S. government disputes the claim that payments are due immediately and has argued that prior investments of U.S. taxpayer money did not produce sufficient returns given the agency’s alleged failures. WHO plans to raise and review the issue at its Executive Board meeting starting Feb. 2, 2026. WHO statement • CIDRAP • ABC7
Expert critiques and legal questions
Public health experts and professional groups reacted sharply. The Infectious Diseases Society of America emphasized that global cooperation is essential for tracking and responding to infectious disease threats. Legal scholars, including Lawrence Gostin, have argued that a unilateral executive withdrawal raises constitutional questions and that Congress may need to approve such a move. Critics warned the withdrawal could reduce timely U.S. access to outbreak intelligence, hamper influenza strain tracking for annual vaccine formulation, slow responses to threats such as Ebola, and undercut polio eradication efforts. ABC News • CIDRAP
WHO response and global context
WHO acknowledged receipt of the U.S. notification of withdrawal and said it would work through its governing bodies to address legal and financial implications. WHO officials reiterated that global health surveillance relies on cooperation among national public health agencies, laboratories and member-state reporting systems. The U.S. is the first country to withdraw from the WHO since its founding in 1948. WHO
California’s options and what’s known about state planning
State leaders have publicly expressed concern about losing a national channel for global health information. The governor’s office and state public health agencies said they are analyzing options to preserve access to critical data and technical cooperation. Some state officials and public health experts have suggested California could deepen direct ties with foreign public health agencies, academic networks and private disease‑surveillance platforms. However, as of this writing, there is no public documentation or reporting that Gov. Gavin Newsom has completed arrangements to “plug directly into global disease-tracking networks.” Official releases and federal reporting remain focused on the national action and the WHO’s response. CDC • ABC7
What experts say state and local health officials can do
Public health experts recommend several practical measures states can take to mitigate the loss of WHO membership:
- Strengthen direct relationships with national public health agencies abroad and university research centers.
- Invest in domestic laboratory capacity and real-time genomic sequencing to spot new variants faster.
- Build or subscribe to commercial global disease‑surveillance platforms that draw on news reports, social media and laboratory data.
- Coordinate with federal agencies that may continue limited cooperation with WHO or share bilateral data. Analyses • CIDRAP
Implications for the Inland Empire, California
Economic impact
- Health-care systems in the Inland Empire could face higher costs if the region must increase spending on surveillance, laboratory upgrades or independent data subscriptions. Hospitals and clinics already operating on thin margins may see added strain if federal support shifts or is curtailed. CDC
Political consequences
- Local and state elected officials will likely face pressure to explain how they will protect public health without the federal channel to WHO data. Representatives may push for funding or partnerships to fill gaps. The legal question of whether a state can enter international agreements independently could become a political issue. CIDRAP
Social effects
- Communities in the Inland Empire, including large immigrant populations and low-income neighborhoods, could be more vulnerable to delayed detection of outbreaks. Reduced federal coordination might mean slower vaccine updates or targeted responses, affecting schools, workplaces and congregate living sites. ABC News
Cultural relevance
- The Inland Empire’s diverse communities maintain close ties with countries abroad; faster detection of outbreaks in other nations can be important for families who travel or receive visitors. Losing rapid global alerts could affect how local public health offices communicate risk to culturally and linguistically diverse populations. CDC
Practical applications for residents
Local health departments may expand outreach, testing and vaccination clinics to compensate for delayed national alerts. Employers, schools and long-term care facilities might need updated contingency plans. Residents should stay informed through county public health channels and maintain routine vaccinations and hygiene practices. These are among the steps public health experts recommend. CIDRAP
Sources and further reading
- U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: “United States completes WHO withdrawal”
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: “U.S. withdrawal from WHO”
- WHO statement on notification of withdrawal of the United States
- ABC7 San Francisco: “U.S. completes withdrawal from World Health Organization”
- ABC News: “U.S. officially exits World Health Organization, accusing agency of failures”
- CIDRAP (University of Minnesota): “U.S. formally withdraws from WHO, leaving debt questions”
Reporting note
This article draws on federal and international agency statements and reporting from national news outlets and public health research centers. At the time of publication, there were no independent, published records confirming that California had finalized arrangements to join global disease-tracking networks outside WHO channels; state officials say they are exploring options. CDC • ABC7
