In a dramatic escalation of diplomatic and legal tensions, the World Health Organization (WHO) has initiated a $1 billion lawsuit against the United States and former U.S. President Donald Trump at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), arguing that Washington’s abrupt withdrawal from the organization during Trump’s term constituted a breach of international health agreements and triggered economic and operational damage across the global health community.
According to the legal complaint, the WHO alleges that the Trump administration’s directive to halt U.S. funding and begin withdrawal from the organization violated established commitments under international cooperation frameworks that guide global health responses. The lawsuit claims that the sudden exit disrupted pandemic preparedness efforts, slowed funding pipelines, strained research coordination, and left several ongoing projects without essential financial support.
The 1,200-page filing outlines what the WHO describes as “treaty-level commitments”, asserting that the United States, as a core member and founding participant in global health systems, had binding responsibilities under international agreements, even if those agreements were not formally codified in domestic U.S. law. The organization also argues that the damage was not merely symbolic, citing budgetary shortfalls and cancelled field programs in developing regions as direct consequences of the withdrawal.
In its request to the ICJ, the WHO is seeking $1 billion in compensation, claiming economic losses related to interrupted vaccination distribution, laboratory partnership breakdowns, and emergency response funding gaps. The lawsuit also raises broader questions about the stability of multilateral institutions when major powers disengage without negotiated exit frameworks.
Legal analysts note that the case faces a complex path. The United States historically disputes the ICJ’s jurisdiction in cases involving domestic executive decisions, and it remains unclear whether Washington will participate in proceedings. Several experts argue that although the ICJ can issue advisory or binding rulings under certain conditions, enforcement mechanisms are limited, especially when cases involve major geopolitical powers.
Former President Trump has previously defended his decision to cut ties with the WHO, arguing that U.S. taxpayers were “bearing the cost of an organization that failed to protect American interests.” Supporters of the former administration maintain that the president acted within his authority to reassess international commitments deemed unfavorable to the United States.
Meanwhile, global health officials have expressed concern that the lawsuit, regardless of outcome, reflects growing tensions between national sovereignty and global cooperation. Some diplomats say the case could set a precedent for future disputes involving funding obligations within international organizations.
The ICJ is expected to determine the admissibility of the complaint in the coming months. If accepted, the proceedings could become one of the most consequential legal battles between an international organization and a major state actor in recent history, with implications for global governance, treaty enforcement, and the operational future of multilateral health systems.
As of now, neither the U.S. State Department nor representatives for former President Trump have issued detailed public statements in response to the filing. The WHO has stated it will not comment further until the ICJ formally schedules hearings.
