A recent executive order issued under the banner of “withdrawing the United States from the World Health Organization” has generated considerable attention. At first glance, the order appears to fulfill a long-standing demand from Americans concerned about foreign influence in public health governance. However, a closer examination of the text reveals that it falls short of enacting a true legal withdrawal. Instead, the order consolidates pandemic response authority within the Executive Office of the President and shifts responsibility into a national security apparatus that is largely immune to democratic oversight. In other words, the people are once more left out of the picture, and the Executive Office of the President, created by Charles Merriam, serves its purpose as the “Obvious Deep State.”
The executive order states, “The United States intends to withdraw from the WHO.” This language is neither definitive nor sufficient under international law. According to Article 7 of the Constitution of the World Health Organization, a member state may withdraw only by submitting a formal written notice to the Director-General. The withdrawal becomes effective one year from the date that notice is received. It is important to note that the language of intent is not binding. Saying you intend to do something is not the same as agreeing to something.
This executive order does not issue a formal notice. It revokes the Biden administration’s January 20, 2021, letter retracting President Trump’s 2020 withdrawal attempt but does not itself initiate a new withdrawal. That distinction is critical. While the revocation of a retraction may appear procedurally significant, it does not meet the WHO’s legal requirement for renewed notification. The order contains no evidence that a new letter has been delivered to the WHO Director-General.
This pattern is consistent with the Government Accountability Office’s 2020 statement that unless the United States delivers formal notice in accordance with a treaty’s provisions, the U.S. remains legally bound. Without such documentation, this order amounts to a political gesture rather than a binding withdrawal.
The order revokes Executive Order 13987, issued by President Biden in 2021 to coordinate a unified response to COVID-19 and reestablish American leadership in global health. While this revocation may appear symbolically significant, it does not dismantle the administrative architecture that supports WHO collaboration or pandemic control mechanisms. Revocation of previous orders does not dismantle bureaucracy.
The new order does not contain provisions that eliminate federal agencies’ embedded relationships with global health actors. Instead, the responsibilities of pandemic response are merely reassigned, primarily to the White House’s own pandemic office and the National Security Council. This is not decentralization. It is administrative reshuffling that leaves the underlying framework intact while concentrating more control in the executive branch.
In essence, this is not a structural break from the WHO but a redirection of oversight from global partners to executive staff.
One of the most consequential aspects of this executive order is found in its delegation of pandemic response functions to the National Security Council. Section 2(c) states that the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs will establish “directorates and coordinating mechanisms… as he deems necessary and appropriate to safeguard public health and fortify biosecurity.”
This language vests pandemic-related authority in the NSC—a body traditionally concerned with military and diplomatic affairs, not domestic health policy. Historically, the NSC has operated largely without public transparency or congressional accountability. Its inclusion in this context represents a sharp departure from public health governance grounded in the Department of Health and Human Services or the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
This move effectively reclassifies pandemic response as a matter of national security. By placing domestic health strategy within the purview of the NSC, the president creates a centralized command system under White House control, far removed from local public health infrastructure or federalism-based checks and balances.
This structure mirrors central planning models seen in wartime governance and diverges from the constitutional design, in which legislative and state authorities play a crucial role in public health decisions. Executive authority is re-centralized under the National Security Council.
It is important to note that funding and personnel measures are only temporarily paused. The order further claims that while withdrawal from the WHO is underway, the United States will cease negotiations on the WHO Pandemic Agreement and amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR). It also declares that any such agreements “will have no binding force on the United States.”
While this language is assertive, it does not formally remove the U.S. from the IHR framework. The IHR is a binding international legal agreement under the WHO constitution, to which the United States is a party. Amendments to the IHR are adopted by the World Health Assembly and apply to member states automatically unless a state submits formal reservations or opts out within a defined period.
As of now, the United States has not opted out of the IHR, and the executive order does not instruct the State Department to begin such a process. Mere refusal to participate in negotiations does not relieve the United States of obligations already codified in the agreement. Without formal diplomatic and legal action to exit the IHR, the U.S. remains bound by its provisions. The International Health Regulations (2005) are a legally binding agreement under the framework of the World Health Organization Constitution, to which the United States is a party. These regulations govern how countries must detect, assess, report, and respond to public health events that may cross borders.
When the U.S. ratified the WHO Constitution in 1948, it agreed to be bound by regulations adopted by the World Health Assembly (WHA) — including any amendments — unless it explicitly rejects them.
This renders the executive order’s declaration largely symbolic. It may suggest future non-compliance, but it does not effectuate legal disengagement. Thus, US obligations under the International Health Regulations remain intact.
The executive order instructs the Secretary of State and the Office of Management and Budget to pause U.S. government funding to the WHO, recall American personnel and contractors, and identify alternative organizations to carry out WHO-related functions. However, these measures are expressly framed as “appropriate” and “practicable”—terms that provide wide administrative discretion.
There is no indication that these actions will be permanent. Nor is there a prohibition against future re-engagement. The order does not eliminate funding authorizations, nullify appropriations, or pass through Congress. It merely directs the executive branch to pause, reassign, and explore alternatives.
Moreover, the final section of the order states that it is subject to “the availability of appropriations.” This condition preserves the possibility that future budgets could reverse or override the order’s directives, especially under a different administration. Without legislative support, these temporary measures lack long-term enforceability.
The order expands bureaucratic power without democratic safeguards the final clauses of the order contain disclaimers that reinforce its technocratic character. Section 5 specifies that the order “does not create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law.” This language is standard in modern executive orders and is designed to shield the government from legal challenges. But in this context, it confirms that the order is neither rights-based nor citizen-enforceable.
In practical terms, this means that the newly empowered offices and coordinating mechanisms—especially those within the National Security Council and the Office of Pandemic Preparedness and Response—will operate without meaningful oversight from Congress, the courts, or the public.
Rather than restoring constitutional order or limiting foreign influence, the order lays the groundwork for a new pandemic governance regime housed entirely within the Executive Office of the President. In conclusion, this is a withdrawal in name only
While marketed as a decisive exit from the WHO, this executive order does not accomplish a legal withdrawal. It fails to initiate the proper diplomatic steps required under WHO rules, does not remove the United States from binding international agreements, and does not eliminate the federal apparatus that supports pandemic coordination with international entities.
What it does accomplish is a consolidation of health authority within the presidency, especially under national security and emergency management frameworks. This is not a return to constitutional governance. It is an entrenchment of executive power under the pretense of rejecting globalism.
For those concerned with liberty, constitutional checks and balances, and the decentralization of authority, this executive order should be viewed not as a victory but as a Trojan Horse. The language may be anti-globalist, but the structure it creates is anything but. You will find that this is true with most of Trump’s executive orders. They are no more than the consolidation of power within the Executive Office of the President (EOP). Progressive Architects such as Frank Goodnow, Charles Merriam, and Woodrow Wilson would be proud.
Authors’ opinions are their own and may not represent those of Grok Media, LLC, GraniteGrok.com, its sponsors, readers, authors, or advertisers.
Agree? Disagree? Submit Op-Eds to steve@granitegrok.com – We want to hear from you, too!
