The World Health Organization’s (WHO) handling of the COVID-19 pandemic has come under intense scrutiny, revealing a constellation of systemic weaknesses that are emblematic of deeper challenges in global health governance. A comprehensive scoping review recently published in Humanities and Social Sciences Communications synthesizes a broad spectrum of stakeholder criticisms, illustrating how entrenched institutional structures, political dynamics, and operational decisions have shaped—and in many cases, hindered—the global pandemic response. The review serves as a critical lens on WHO’s performance, situating its COVID-19 response within the broader historical context of international health emergencies and illustrating persistent governance dilemmas.
One of the most glaring concerns highlighted is the delay in WHO’s declaration of a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) and subsequent pandemic status. This timing lag, which has been repeatedly critiqued, is largely attributed to WHO’s dependence on member states’ self-reporting under the International Health Regulations (IHR). While designed to respect national sovereignty and facilitate cooperation, this reliance compromised the timeliness of essential global preparedness measures. A poignant example was WHO’s disregard of early warning signals from Taiwan, a nation excluded from WHO’s formal processes due to geopolitical factors. The consequences of delayed declarations are not unique to COVID-19; they echo the tragic experience during the West African Ebola outbreak of 2014-2016, where procrastination in recognizing the crisis intensified its impact. These patterns expose an inherent tension in global health governance: the challenge of balancing respect for national autonomy with the necessity of swift and coordinated international action.
Underlying this problematic delay is a structural constraint within WHO’s operational framework. The International Health Regulations were intended as a cooperative instrument but have routinely fallen short in crisis management, with the current pandemic underscoring the need for innovations in data verification and decision-making mechanisms. The review advocates for a re-imagined system that enhances promptness without eroding trust between member states and WHO, emphasizing agile yet transparent processes that could empower WHO to act independently of geopolitical frictions. In the evolving international arena, streamlining WHO’s internal procedures to enable rapid and decisive action during emergent health threats is imperative for mitigating future pandemics.
Historically, WHO’s performance in emergencies has been marked by similar criticisms, reinforcing a pattern of institutional limitations. The 2009 H1N1 influenza outbreak and the 2014-2016 Ebola epidemic serve as precedents where delayed action, incoherent communication, and weak enforcement powers impeded effective responses. The repetition of these issues during COVID-19 suggests entrenched organizational challenges rather than isolated failures. WHO’s constrained authority in a politicized multilateral landscape has hampered its capacity to act as a globally respected leader and coordinator. This systemic inertia reduces WHO’s ability to unify diverse political actors around a common strategy, exposing fissures that undermine global health security.
The review distinguishes itself by systematically compiling and categorizing multi-faceted stakeholder criticisms of WHO’s pandemic response, spanning delays, governance failures, communication breakdowns, and vaccine inequity. Unlike prior studies focusing narrowly on one crisis or dimension, this work provides a structured analysis across diverse actors including governments, public health experts, and media outlets. It contextualizes these critiques within longstanding institutional and political dynamics that have historically constrained WHO’s leadership role, providing a holistic view of the complex challenges facing global health governance.
Delving deeper, the findings reveal how the persistent friction between state sovereignty and supranational authority cripples unified collective action. The review draws on examples such as emergency medical team coordination in Ukraine, illustrating the tension between formal certification frameworks and the need for pragmatic flexibility amidst real-world crises. This underscores the delicate balance WHO must strike between adherence to protocols and responsiveness to on-the-ground exigencies. It also highlights the centrality of legitimacy and trust to WHO’s ability to operate effectively, themes critical to ongoing reform efforts including International Health Regulations revision and a proposed new pandemic accord. Strengthening WHO’s autonomy and global credibility emerges as a priority to surmount political and operational hurdles.
Communication strategy failures during COVID-19 have further diminished WHO’s public standing. Conflicting guidance on mask use, vaccine safety, and preventive measures sowed public confusion and eroded trust, exacerbating the spread of misinformation. This mirrors earlier weaknesses during the H1N1 pandemic when inconsistent messaging undermined confidence. The review emphasizes the necessity of developing clear, consistent, and science-grounded communication protocols that can adapt to rapidly evolving evidence while remaining accessible across diverse sociopolitical contexts. Enhancing WHO’s capacity to navigate the complexities of modern information ecosystems is essential to restoring credibility and combating misinformation in future crises.
Vaccine inequity stands out as a defining criticism with significant ethical and practical dimensions. The inadequacies of initiatives like COVAX in delivering equitable vaccine access exposed and perpetuated systemic disparities, particularly disadvantaging low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). This inequity recalls past global health challenges such as unequal access to HIV/AIDS therapies, reinforcing the notion that the issue transcends logistics to strike at the moral core of global health solidarity. Critics highlight WHO’s insufficient support for promoting local vaccine production capacities in LMICs, which has entrenched dependency on high-income nations for critical supplies. Geopolitical rivalries and logistical obstacles compounded these disparities, demanding a reimagined approach that empowers under-resourced regions and prioritizes equitable global distribution.
Global coordination challenges intertwine with vaccine disparity concerns, reflecting fragmentation within the international response framework. Taiwan’s political exclusion from WHO epitomizes lost opportunities for enhanced cooperation and knowledge exchange. Meanwhile, the geopolitical rivalry between the United States and China severely constrained WHO’s operational landscape. The U.S.’s withdrawal from WHO leadership roles, accompanied by accusations of Chinese favoritism, and China’s contrasting narrative positioning WHO as a supportive partner, created a bipolarized and often hostile global discourse. This “battle of narratives” severely eroded WHO’s impartiality and credibility, paralyzing decisive global action and contributing to institutional stalemates during critical junctures such as World Health Assembly meetings.
These geopolitical tensions are not aberrations but continuations of longstanding patterns that have impaired global health diplomacy. Similar rivalries emerged during the SARS crisis, where fragmented international policies obstructed containment efforts. While WHO remains the singular multilateral health authority, its limited enforcement powers restrict its ability to harmonize responses among politically and economically divergent countries. The review advocates for strengthening WHO’s convening role, enabling it to foster higher alignment among member states and dismantle nation-centric, disjointed responses that undermine collective health security.
The issue of funding architecture further compounds WHO’s governance challenges. Over 80% of the organization’s budget derives from earmarked voluntary contributions, many from high-income country donors who influence WHO’s priorities. This financially dependent model jeopardizes WHO’s autonomy and impartiality, constraining equity and global health responsiveness. Past analyses have underlined how donor-driven agendas can skew institutional focus away from broader health needs. Reforms recommending an increase in assessed mandatory contributions aim to create more independent, predictable funding streams that reduce undue political influence and enable WHO to better meet its mandate free from vested interests.
Trust and transparency emerge as critical yet fragile pillars of WHO’s legitimacy. The review details how opaque decision-making and perceived political meddling have corroded public and institutional confidence. Transparency—encompassing timely disclosure of meeting records, decision rationales, and performance evaluations—is indispensable for restoring faith in the organization. Equitable representation, including inclusion of politically marginalized entities such as Taiwan, is essential for underpinning perceptions of fairness and legitimacy. Research underscores the importance of accountability and openness in rebuilding trust, suggesting that WHO must mitigate the negative effects of political pressures while engaging diverse stakeholders to reestablish its authority and efficacy.
A multidimensional strategy is indispensable to restore WHO’s trustworthiness and operational effectiveness. Transparency should be institutionalized through structured disclosures of internal deliberations and audit processes. Communication reforms must prioritize clarity, consistency, and cultural tailoring to navigate misinformation and resonate with politically heterogeneous audiences. Independent oversight bodies could bolster accountability and depoliticize organizational governance. Additionally, broadening involvement to include excluded stakeholders signals inclusivity and strengthens global legitimacy. Importantly, transitioning funding towards sustainable assessed contributions will empower WHO to operate more independently, free from skewed donor agendas.
The culmination of these insights reveals that WHO’s capacity for independent, swift action during global health emergencies needs urgent strengthening. The review’s thematic findings—spanning delays, inequity, governance constraints, communication lapses, and geopolitical entanglements—illustrate complex interdependencies and systemic shortcomings. Addressing these requires a comprehensive, integrative approach that melds rapid decision-making, resource justice, transparent governance, and robust communications. The COVID-19 pandemic has vividly exposed the costs of fragmented, hesitant responses on global health and economic stability, underscoring the necessity of transformative reforms. By absorbing lessons from past failures and embracing equity and transparency, WHO can reclaim its role as the global health authority the world urgently needs.
In conclusion, this scoping review offers a timely and expansive assessment of the multifaceted criticisms levied at WHO during the COVID-19 pandemic, contextualizing them within historic and structural dimensions of global health governance. It calls for urgent reforms that enable WHO to transcend political constraints, assert authoritative leadership, and coordinate unified, equitable pandemic responses. As future pandemics and global health threats loom in an interconnected world rife with geopolitical fault lines, WHO’s revitalization is essential not only for immediate crisis management but for safeguarding humanity’s collective health resilience.
Subject of Research: Criticisms and challenges in WHO’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic, analyzed through a scoping review of stakeholder perspectives within the framework of global health governance.
Article Title: Examining criticism of WHO’s COVID-19 response: a scoping review
Article References:
Mohamed Nour, M., Kisa, S. & Kisa, A. Examining criticism of WHO’s COVID-19 response: a scoping review. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 12, 1198 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-025-05555-8
Image Credits: AI Generated
