US Federal House Bill HB401

US Federal 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/14/25
• Refer: 1/14/25

Caption

No Taxpayer Funding for the World Health Organization Act

Summary

HB401, titled the No Taxpayer Funding for the World Health Organization Act, would prohibit the United States from making any assessed or voluntary contributions to the World Health Organization (WHO) beginning on the date of enactment. In practical terms, the bill would bar federal payments to the WHO regardless of whether they are mandatory dues or discretionary contributions. The measure is short and direct: it does not create a replacement program, establish new reporting requirements, or modify WHO-related policy beyond cutting off U.S. funding. Its effect would be to eliminate the federal government’s financial support for the organization and could alter U.S. participation in international public health coordination through the WHO.

Impact

If enacted, the bill would amend federal law by overriding any existing authority to provide U.S. assessed or voluntary contributions to the WHO. It would affect federal agencies responsible for international health funding and diplomacy, and would likely end U.S. financial participation in the organization unless future legislation restored that authority. The bill’s practical impact would be on federal appropriations and foreign affairs policy rather than on state law or private parties directly.

Sentiment

The available record shows the bill was introduced by a group of Republican sponsors and referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, with no recorded committee transcript or vote history provided. Based on the bill’s title and sponsors, the general sentiment appears strongly supportive among its backers and aligned with a skeptical or oppositional view of WHO funding. Because there are no hearings, amendments, or votes in the provided materials, there is no documented bipartisan debate or formal opposition in the record here.

Contention

The central point of contention is whether the United States should continue funding the World Health Organization at all. Supporters appear to favor ending both mandatory and voluntary payments, likely on grounds of taxpayer protection and dissatisfaction with the WHO’s performance or independence. Potential opponents would likely argue that withdrawing funding could weaken U.S. influence in global health policy and reduce support for international disease response and coordination. No specific objections or counterarguments are recorded in the provided materials.