Attacked and criticized by some of its member states—a euphemism for the obsequious allies of the U.S. administration—the World Health Organization (WHO) finds itself in the crossfire. As we have seen, unsurprisingly, there has been a harsh and long-anticipated resignation, one carried out all too willingly, given the consistent obsequiousness President Javier Milei has shown in favor of his idol, Donald Trump.
Indeed, on March 17, 2026, the Argentine government formalized its withdrawal from the World Health Organization (WHO)—a decision announced a year earlier. Argentina communicated its decision through Foreign Minister Pablo Quirno, via a note addressed to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, acting as the depositary of the WHO Constitution, on March 17, 2025.
“In accordance with the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, the withdrawal takes effect one year after said notification.” Despite its departure from the WHO, Argentina has pledged to maintain international health cooperation through bilateral agreements and regional mechanisms, preserving its sovereignty in health policy decisions.
However, public health experts and international organizations have warned that Argentina’s exit from the WHO could weaken coordination during health emergencies and limit its access to information networks, funding, and technical cooperation. They also note that while countries retain sovereignty over their health policies, the WHO plays a crucial role in coordinating global responses to crises such as pandemics. Abandoning the organization could therefore create greater challenges in disease prevention and control.
But we must truly ask ourselves: why did the Argentine government leave the WHO? Much like the U.S. administration before it, Argentina challenged the international body’s performance during the COVID-19 pandemic using the same arguments, claiming that its recommendations were driven by political interests rather than scientific criteria.
The WHO: An Intergovernmental Advisory Body
Some tend to “forget” the true scope of the WHO, which is nothing more nor less than an intergovernmental advisory body that operates in symbiosis with its member states. Its role is limited to recommending actions for improving the health of citizens and preventing disease outbreaks.
For example, when the Director-General declared the international public health emergency for the COVID-19 coronavirus outbreak, the WHO issued several recommendations. These were not binding advice, but they carried significant political weight. And while its regulations are legally binding, the WHO lacks enforcement mechanisms to compel any country to comply.
In other words, paradoxically, it cannot enforce its own recommendations, as it has no authority to obligate or sanction its members. In practice, it functions as a hub for information exchange, research, and technical guidance—for instance, in the eradication of diseases like malaria and polio.
From its headquarters in Geneva, the WHO insists that it merely provides protocols, recommendations, and technical guidelines, leaving member states sovereign in their implementation and in deciding how best to protect their citizens.
Indeed, during the COVID-19 pandemic, the organization consistently reiterated and recommended simple principles for states to follow, such as reducing public exposure to the virus by identifying all chains of transmission.
Let’s Have a Serious Discussion About the WHO
When we discuss the drift of this organization, we often do so from conspiratorial perspectives—ideas lacking scientific basis that attempt to explain health events through alleged plots orchestrated by powerful actors. Such narratives have damaged the WHO’s credibility.
The most telling examples involve anti-vaccine conspiracy theories. These beliefs, which have existed since the invention of vaccines, have spread widely—particularly through social media—leading to declining vaccination rates and the resurgence of once-controlled diseases. But there is another reality, one more fitting for a serious discussion—a dialectic that would stand in stark contrast to the shallow arguments of Trump or Milei.
By way of illustration: in 2019, the current WHO Director-General presented a report—the “business case” for his organization’s Global Action Plan—stating: “The initial investment of 14.1 billion dollars for the 2019–2023 period is excellent value for money and will generate economic growth of 2–4%. No commodity in the world is more valuable.”
At the time, this writer asked: why should Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus be selling the health sector to investors, rather than discussing the WHO’s five-year plan with its 194 member states? The conclusion: because today, the WHO is more or less privatized.
In reality, the organization controls only 20% of its budget. The remaining 80% comes from voluntary, extrabudgetary contributions from (wealthy) member states and private foundations—almost all of which are earmarked for donor-driven priorities and specific programs.
This trend is even more pronounced in countries home to the world’s largest pharmaceutical companies. The issue is that these contributions come with specific interests, granting donors direct influence over the WHO’s agenda.
The consequences include a loss of democratic autonomy in decision-making and the growing influence of commercial interests, which shift the WHO’s objectives and strategies. One clear example is the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation’s donations—totaling $220 million, among the largest in the WHO’s current budget. Gates, for his part, defends his foundation’s right to manage its resources. But its donations prioritize patented vaccines and medicines over generics. Why does the Gates Foundation promote vaccines? If Gates supports the WHO in exchange for advancing vaccination programs using patented drugs, it is because the providers of those vaccines—and their shareholders, including the Gates Foundation itself—stand to benefit.
This would be a serious line of argument—one that matters because it directly affects the poorest populations in the Global South, who often cannot afford such costly vaccination programs.
The overwhelming influence of the transnational pharmaceutical industry and major foundations can also be seen in the case of the so-called “swine flu.” In June 2009, the WHO declared the highest alert for the H1N1 pandemic, following the recommendation of its Standing Vaccination Committee. Among its members and advisors were economists who had contracts with the manufacturers of Tamiflu and other antiviral drugs. The vaccine promoted by the WHO’s pandemic experts generated roughly one billion dollars for those companies.
Health represented a $10 trillion market in 2020—a fact the World Economic Forum never tires of reminding its constituents. “Donations” to the WHO or participation in public-private health partnerships are valuable investments for multinational corporations seeking new profitable markets.
Health is no longer conceived as a human right, as proclaimed in the WHO’s constitution, but rather as a commodity—or at best, as a contribution to productivity, as promoted by Jeffrey Sachs in the 2001 WHO report “Investing in Health for Economic Development.”
Today, nearly all international health efforts are organized through public-private partnerships, which represent yet another mechanism for extracting wealth (from the 99% to the richest 1%) by leveraging the public sector for private gain.
There is only one reason public-sector organizations are entering into such agreements: they are seen as the only untapped source of funding. And to some extent, that is true. But it is true only because, under neoliberal policies, public-sector budgets have been slashed and tax bases eroded.
This evolution is itself the result of the influence transnational corporations wield over governments and international financial institutions. Simply put, it means ignoring root causes—miserable living conditions—in favor of short-term technological fixes; neglecting disease prevention and health promotion in favor of treatment (invariably pharmaceutical); and overlooking the fact that all wealthy countries significantly and sustainably improved population health by tackling poor living conditions through public works and public health measures.
The solution to health funding challenges is not for public bodies to beg the private sector or the foundations of famous philanthropists—themselves fully embedded in transnational capitalism. Their “geopolitical politicization” bodes ill. The world’s most powerful nations demand that the WHO serve their respective sovereign interests, often for reasons that have little to do with global health.
The WHO finds itself in this situation despite having, over the past decade, defined its global health leadership more through its scientific, medical, and public health expertise than through any political authority to challenge states.
The reality is that the most powerful WHO member states, their transnational corporations, and international financial institutions are largely responsible for preventing the establishment and maintenance of functional and equitable health systems in poor countries, while simultaneously weakening and dismantling public health services in wealthy ones. This is the debate that a sovereign country must consider when deciding whether to stay or leave—this is the one true accountability it owes its people.
* Article originally published on Estrategia.la on March 20, 2026.
Uruguayan journalist resident in Geneva, former member of the United Nations Press Correspondents Association in Geneva, analyst Associated with the Latin American Center for Strategic Analysis (CLAE)