RFK Jr., the World Health Organization, and the Future of American Healthcare
Welcome to a whirlwind in American politics—where, thanks to the echo chamber of social social media and the flood of half-baked news, many people felt utterly blindsided on November 5th, when republican nominee Donald Trump defeated then Vice-President Kamala Harris, who picked up the democratic nomination ahead of former President Joe Biden’s dropping out of the race in July of this past year.
As we move forward into another iteration of Trump’s America, we aim to address exactly what these political shake-ups mean for healthcare in general—and sexual health in particular.
Let’s get a clear-eyed look at the new administration’s impact on public health initiatives: in particular, the intent to withdraw from the World Health Organization, and the implications of someone like Robert F. Kennedy Jr. taking the front seat.
We believe all health education should be accessible, inclusive, and understandable, no matter what’s happening in the political arena. So let’s dive right in!
The World Health Organization
Who’s WHO?
Their Goal: To help everyone, everywhere, reach the best possible level of health.
How They Work: They are part of the United Nations efforts to offer accessible info about health, coordinate emergency responses to outbreaks/pandemics, and bring countries together to talk about improving global health with an evidence-based lens.
U.S. Involvement: For a long time, the United States was one of the biggest supporters, giving between $163 million and $816 million each year.
Now: On January 20, 2025, President Trump announced the U.S. would (once again) leave the WHO and stop all funding.
What Does WHO Do for Global Health?
Over the years, the WHO has been part of a few major public health successes, including ending smallpox, promoting better rules to control tobacco, and creating agreements to handle new health threats.
Technical Assistance Across Borders: The WHO sends medical experts to countries that need help planning health programs or fighting outbreaks.
Setting Health Guidelines For All: They make rules and share advice on issues like vaccinations, safe medicine use, and disease prevention.
Coordinating Emergencies Like Covid: When there’s a crisis (such as COVID-19 or Ebola), the WHO helps different countries work together, share supplies, and learn from each other quickly.
Advocating for Better Public Health: They push for changes—like improving access to primary health care, preventing tobacco use, or making sure people get vaccines.
Why the U.S. Pulled Out of the WHO (Again)
Many argued that China withheld important information about COVID-19 in 2020, and that the WHO failed to hold China accountable. As a result, critics claim the early pandemic response was hampered, with delayed public health emergency declarations and incomplete data sharing.
Today, the same points remain central to Trump’s decision to exit.
Lawmakers continue to assert that the WHO has not instituted sufficient reforms to ensure transparency and protect American sovereignty.
Concerns have also been raised about new global pandemic agreements that could, in their view, give WHO too much power.
Despite ongoing talks about improving its structure, the WHO’s slow pace of reform have prompted the Trump administration to withhold funding and membership in order to, as they see it, avoid repeating past mistakes.
What Happens Now?
Because the withdrawal process in 2020 was never fully completed, it’s difficult to say exactly what impacts this will have on American’s health. President Trump initiated the withdrawal in his first term, but before it could take effect, the Biden administration reversed course, reinstating the U.S. into the organization.
What We Do Know
Funding Suspension: During the 2020 withdrawal attempt, the U.S. briefly halted some funding to the WHO. Experts at the time feared that reduced U.S. contributions could affect programs addressing issues like global vaccine distribution, maternal health, and disease surveillance — though there is no evidence to confirm this impact directly.
Expert Concerns: Many public health experts argued that even the short-term loss of U.S. leadership and resources could hinder the WHO’s ability to coordinate international responses to crises (including future pandemics).
Influence & Decision-Making: With the U.S. in the process of leaving, American representatives have limited participation in some WHO discussions, potentially reducing U.S. influence on international health guidelines.
In short, the 2020 withdrawal never reached the point where we can say with confidence that it tangibly altered health outcomes—largely because the U.S. rejoined before the final cutoff date.
Public health organizations and international policy experts mostly raised warnings about how a full withdrawal could weaken global coordination and slow disease response efforts, rather than documenting a direct result of the 2020 move.
Key Takeaways from the Withdrawal
No More International Health Regulation Updates: The U.S. will stop contributing to new rules on global disease response (risking slower alerts and weaker cooperation when outbreaks happen).
Pandemic Agreement Stalls: The new global pandemic agreement would not include American insights or resources, leaving the CDC unchecked in providing citizens with procedures and resources if another major outbreak occurs.
Cuts to WHO Funding: Shrinking budgets for research and emergency aid, including efforts related to sexual and reproductive health, could potentially result in less research and information reaching the public.
Reduced Global Health Influence: The U.S. loses a major platform for shaping international health standards.
Weakened Scientific Exchange: U.S. scientists will have fewer chances to collaborate with global teams on vaccines, treatments, and prevention strategies.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (RFK Jr.)
Running the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Donald Trump has nominated Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to head the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
As HHS Secretary, RFK Jr. would have sweeping authority over the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the National Institutes of Health (NIH). This power is exascerbated by the U.S. withdrawal from the WHO.
The role shapes key national health policies, ranging from vaccine guidelines to insurance programs like Medicare and Medicaid.
Given the significant reach of HHS—from overseeing disease outbreaks to setting standards for reproductive health—those critical of RFK Jr. argue that appointing an outspoken critic of mainstream medicine may undermine the scientific integrity of vital programs.
However, Trump administration supporters see his nomination as part of a broader push to “reform” federal health agencies they believe have become overly bureaucratic or unresponsive to public concerns.
Kennedy’s nomination has drawn sharp criticism due to his long-standing promotion of vaccine skepticism, which is at odds with the scientific consensus on the safety and effectiveness of immunizations. Public health experts worry that if he’s confirmed, it could lead to a shift away from established, evidence-based health measures.
RFK Jr. Critisism
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has done some pretty eyebrow-raising things over the years—enough to make many experts question his fitness to lead.
Kennedy claims that he’s “never been anti-vaccine.” However, in July 2023, he told podcaster Lex Fridman quote: “there’s no vaccine that is, you know, safe and effective.”
Additionally, RFK Jr. is the chairman-on-leave for the Children’s Health Defense (CHD), which is the country’s largest anti-vaccine organization, making his stance incredibly difficult to deny.
Further, a 2021 Twitter study actually deemed RFK Jr. the most prominent cause for vaccine misinformation on the platform, responsible for more than 13 percent of all misinformation that was retweeted.
Though his loud anti-vaccine conspiracy theories may be viewed favorably by some of the general public, critics argue his track record is absolutely bananas, and poses a serious risk to anyone who believes in evidence-based medicine.
Oh, and in one bizarre instance, doctors actually discovered high mercury levels and a dead parasitic worm in his brain. He admitted this to be the cause of “recent brain fog and memory issues”.
He also, famously, retrieved a dead bear struck by a motorist, later leaving the body in New York’s Central Park in 2014. Photos show him posing with his fingers in the bear’s bloodied mouth.
(AP Photo/Stefan Jeremiah)
Finally, a federal investigation was briefly opened two decades ago after he allegedly cut off the head of a dead whale and brought it home, though the probe ended shortly thereafter.
Sexual Health Education
So what does this all mean for the future of sexual health education?
Frankly, sexual health will assuredly suffer as a direct result of a potential RFK Jr. term in addition to the U.S. withdrawal from the WHO.
For sexual health professionals—who often rely on evidence-based recommendations—RFK Jr.’s nomination signals a potential storm. It raises serious questions about whether vital prevention measures, community outreach programs, and sexual health education initiatives will continue to receive federal support.
One clear possibility is privatization. With federal backing for comprehensive sex ed feeling increasingly shaky, more organizations may look to private institutions, philanthropic foundations, and corporations to receive and distribute sexual healthcare materials.
Here at Evidentia Sexual Health Education Center, we’ve never depended on large-scale government funding. Instead, community members who share our passion for inclusive, data-driven sexual health education help power what we do.
Companies, private foundations, and individuals committed to public health are invited to invest in our mission to ensure that crucial information remains free or affordable to those who need it most.
This pivot to private support is more than just a funding strategy; it’s about safeguarding sexual health resources from political trends. Regardless of who’s in power, we’re committed to making sure everyone—especially underserved and marginalized groups—has access to unbiased, high-quality sexual health education.
Looking Ahead
From an international organization pullout to leadership shakeups and controversial nominations, the American healthcare landscape is changing fast. While these shifts could mean less federal support for sexual health initiatives, it also highlights how important it is for communities and private organizations to step up.
Our pledge is to remain a reliable source of free and or low-cost sexual health education, no matter where the political winds blow.
By leaning on community-driven and private funding, we can keep our mission alive: bridging the knowledge gap and empowering people with accurate, inclusive information.
Because at the end of the day, sexual health education isn’t just a political issue—it’s a fundamental right. And as the chaos continues in Washington, we’ll be here, doing what we do best: making sexual health knowledge accessible to all.
Read More From Evidentia:
