Buenos Aires – Argentina has formally severed ties with the World Health Organization (WHO), a move fulfilling a pledge made by President Javier Milei to prioritize what he calls “national health sovereignty.” The withdrawal, which took effect on Tuesday, March 17, 2026, mirrors a similar exit by the United States under former President Donald Trump, signaling a growing trend of nations reassessing their relationship with the global health body. This decision regarding the WHO, a key element of Argentina’s shifting foreign policy, is sparking debate about the future of international health cooperation and the balance between national autonomy and global collaboration.
The move comes exactly one year after the Milei administration formally notified the United Nations of its intention to withdraw. Argentine Foreign Minister Pablo Quirno confirmed the exit, stating the nation will no longer be bound by “supranational impositions” and will instead focus on building bilateral and regional health agreements. The departure of both Argentina and the United States represents the most significant challenge to the WHO since its founding in 1948, raising questions about the organization’s authority and influence.
A Shared Skepticism: The Milei-Trump Alignment
President Milei has consistently criticized the WHO’s handling of the COVID-19 pandemic, labeling the lockdowns implemented globally as the “greatest experiment in social control in history.” He accuses the Geneva-based agency of prioritizing political interests over scientific rigor. This sentiment aligns with the views of former President Trump, who also voiced strong objections to the WHO’s response to the pandemic and initiated the process of the US withdrawal in 2020. The synchronized exits of Washington and Buenos Aires suggest the emergence of a “sovereignty-first” bloc that questions the WHO’s advisory role.
While the WHO maintains it is solely an advisory body without the power to impose laws, both Milei and Trump have argued that its “recommendations” functioned as de facto directives with significant economic and social consequences. Milei’s administration has publicly expressed a desire to establish a “Latin American Health Shield,” emphasizing regional cooperation and customized responses to health crises, free from what they perceive as the bureaucratic delays of the UN system.
“A Nefarious Organisation” and the WHO’s Response
In recent speeches, President Milei has repeatedly referred to the WHO as a “nefarious organisation,” reflecting a broader skepticism among right-wing leaders towards international bodies. This perspective views such organizations as potential threats to national sovereignty. Javier Milei, who assumed office in December 2023, has consistently championed libertarian economic policies and a smaller role for government intervention, extending this philosophy to international relations.
WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus has strongly refuted these criticisms, describing the withdrawals as “shortsighted and misguided.” He warned that the loss of funding and data-sharing from the US and Argentina will create a “dangerous void” in global disease surveillance, particularly in tracking influenza strains and efforts to eradicate polio. Tedros emphasized that the WHO only provides evidence-based guidance, leaving sovereign nations to adapt policies as they see fit. “Withdrawal makes both the United States and the rest of the world unsafe,” he stated during a press briefing in Geneva.
The Broader Context of International Withdrawals
Argentina’s exit from the WHO is part of a larger pattern of international withdrawals initiated by the Trump administration and continued, in some respects, by the Milei government. As of March 2026, the White House has initiated or completed withdrawals from 66 international bodies and treaties, including the UNFCCC (Paris Climate Agreement), finalized on January 27, 2026, and UNESCO, where funding and participation remain suspended. The withdrawal from the UN Population Fund (UNFPA) was justified as a move towards “pro-life” international policy.
For Milei, aligning Argentina with this “Great Exit” is seen as a strategic move to unlock preferential trade deals and strengthen security cooperation with Washington. According to Wikipedia, Milei’s political party, La Libertad Avanza, advocates for significant reductions in government spending and deregulation, aligning with the “America First” agenda.
Looking Ahead: Regional Cooperation and Global Health Security
The immediate impact of Argentina’s withdrawal remains to be seen. The focus now shifts to whether other right-leaning governments in Latin America, such as those in El Salvador or Paraguay, will follow suit. Critics, including the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), have warned that the loss of “disease intelligence” could abandon the US and Argentina vulnerable during future pandemics. Yet, Minister Quirno has insisted that Argentina is not isolating itself but rather “safeguarding its capacity to make decisions regarding health policies.”
The long-term implications for global health security are significant. The WHO continues to maintain an open door for re-engagement, but the US remains embroiled in a dispute over $278 million (£219 million) in unpaid membership dues from 2024 and 2025. The coming months will be crucial in determining whether these withdrawals represent a temporary disruption or a fundamental shift in the landscape of international health cooperation.
Disclaimer: This article provides information about international health policy and should not be considered medical or financial advice.
The next key development to watch will be the outcome of ongoing discussions between Argentina and regional partners regarding the establishment of the “Latin American Health Shield,” as details of this initiative are expected to be unveiled in the coming months. Share your thoughts on this evolving situation in the comments below.
