The purpose of this update is to analyze the recent joint announcement by Argentina and the United States regarding their US Argentina WHO withdrawal. This decision was formally ratified during US Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s visit to Buenos Aires. He met with Argentine President Javier Milei and Health Minister Mario Lugones.

Key Points of Withdrawal

The joint statement issued by Secretary Kennedy and Minister Lugones on May 27, 2025, articulates crucial reasons for their US Argentina WHO withdrawal:

• Both countries express profound concerns regarding the WHO’s management of the COVID-19 pandemic. They argue it revealed “structural and operational shortcomings” undermining global trust.
• They criticize the organization for its failure to provide timely transparency and critical information access during the crisis.
• Concerns are raised about the WHO’s “increasing politicization” and deviation from its foundational purpose.
• Both governments object to what they term “disproportionate financial demands” and the influence of “non-scientific agendas.”

This announcement follows previous signals of their intentions. Argentina’s President Milei indicated an exit in February 2025, shortly after President Trump initiated the US withdrawal in January through Executive Order 14155.

A Convergence of Political Ideologies

This withdrawal reflects the alignment of political ideologies between two self-identified political outsiders: i) Javier Milei, a libertarian economist known for advocating reduced government expenditures, ii) Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who, appointed by President Trump, has voiced skepticism toward pandemic-era mandates.

Specific Criticisms of the WHO

Argentina’s administration has pointedly criticized the WHO as ineffective. They assert: “The WHO’s recommendations are ineffective because they stem from political agendas and bureaucratic frameworks that refuse to acknowledge their own failings.” The government further criticized the organization’s COVID-19 lockdown measures, dismissing them as a “caveman quarantine.”

Kennedy’s criticisms extend to allegations of undue influence from China, gender ideology, and the pharmaceutical industry. In his speech at the World Health Assembly, he called for other nations to join in the US Argentina WHO withdrawal and to participate in forming alternative health institutions.

A New Path Forward

The joint statement positions this withdrawal as the initiation of a new model for global health cooperation:

• Creating a “modern global health cooperation model grounded in scientific integrity, transparency, sovereignty, and accountability.”
• Emphasizing “cost-effective, evidence-based public health interventions” that prioritize prevention.
• Addressing fundamental causes such as “environmental toxins, nutritional deficiencies, and food safety standards.”
• Extending an invitation to other nations committed to scientific integrity and human dignity to collaborate in this new framework.

Implications of the Decision

Health System Impact

Critics, including some members of Argentina‘s opposition, caution that exiting the WHO could limit access to critical funding and vaccines. While many global health experts highlight the WHO’s essential role, they recognize its significant shortcomings in pandemic response.

Economic and Policy Consequences

This decision marks a pivotal shift in international health policy, with potential implications for:

1. Health Economics: The withdrawal may disrupt funding for global health initiatives. It could lead to higher costs or inefficiencies as alternative systems develop.
2. Market Access: Changes in alignment with global health standards could impact approval processes and market access for pharmaceuticals and medical devices.
3. Research Coordination: The proposed new framework may transform how international health research is funded, conducted, and coordinated.
4. Regulatory Divergence: Moving away from WHO standards could lead to varied regulatory approaches, complicating market access for health products.

The statement highlights both countries’ dedication to sovereign health decision-making. It signals a shift towards policies rooted in national rather than international coordination. This transformation could significantly impact longstanding global health governance structures. It may also influence how other nations engage with international health cooperation.

For more details, visit the official press release on the HHS website.