Bailey Johnson is a global health professional with a diverse background in clinical science, international affairs, healthcare, and Chinese studies. She previously conducted cancer research at the National Institutes of Health’s National Cancer Institute and has since built a career focused on global health diplomacy, U.S.-China health cooperation, biotechnology, and equitable health interventions. Her cross-cultural expertise spans work with institutions such as China CDC Weekly, the National Security Commission on Emerging Biotechnology, and the National Committee on U.S.-China Relations, as well as founding Health Atlas.
In this Q&A, Bailey shares her views on the impact of U.S. withdrawal from the WHO, the challenges and opportunities for U.S.-China health cooperation, and the importance of student exchanges between the two nations.
On the first day of his second term, U.S. President Donald Trump signed an executive order withdrawing the U.S. from the World Health Organization (WHO). How might this decision impact public health in the U.S. and around the world?
The decision to withdraw the United States from the World Health Organization (WHO) would have far-reaching consequences for global public health, affecting not only the U.S. but also the world’s ability to respond effectively to health crises. I believe that this move would create two major challenges: first, it would leave the US and the world less prepared and weaker in responding to future health threats; and second, it would create a leadership vacuum in global health governance which has the potential to shift influence to other nations, particularly China.
The United States is one of WHO’s founding members and a leading contributor, ultimately playing a critical role in supporting global health initiatives. Between 2022 and 2023, the U.S. contributed approximately $1.2 billion to the WHO, and annually has been accounted for contributing 12%–15% of the WHO’s entire budget. This funding has been essential in supporting WHO-led programs such as polio eradication, pandemic preparedness, universal health coverage, and emergency response efforts. Without U.S. support, WHO’s ability to carry out these programs would be significantly weakened, which could result in a loss of critical funding, jeopardized disease surveillance efforts, and reduced U.S. influence in global health decision-making. The WHO is already financially strained, and the absence of U.S. contributions could lead to job losses, project cuts, and delays in securing necessary resources for vital public health initiatives.
Beyond funding, the WHO serves as a critical hub for global disease surveillance. Countries submit essential health data to the organization, allowing the international community to track and respond to emerging threats in real-time. The U.S. withdrawal from WHO would limit its access to this information, making it more difficult for American scientists and policymakers to detect and respond to new disease outbreaks (outside of the U.S.). A historical example of this is COVID-19. Early on, China submitted the genomic sequence of the virus to WHO via the GISAID platform. This action enabled researchers worldwide to develop diagnostics, vaccines, and treatments to the virus. Without WHO membership, the U.S. risks being excluded from early-stage data access (like the genomic sequence for COVID), delaying its ability to develop timely countermeasures. As a result, while the rest of the world will mobilize against a health crisis, the U.S. could remain disconnected, unprepared, and vulnerable to emerging threats.
To my second point: Beyond weakening global health security, the U.S. withdrawal from WHO would leave a leadership void—one that China is strategically positioned to fill. Through initiatives like the Health Silk Road, investments in biomedical research, and partnerships with WHO and developing nations, China has been steadily expanding its influence in global health governance. Beijing has pledged billions to global health programs, often through bilateral assistance rather than multilateral organizations, allowing it to build direct partnerships with countries in need.
China’s role in providing PPE, vaccines, and medical aid to Latin America, Africa, and Southeast Asia during the COVID-19 pandemic have strengthened its relationships with these regions. Meaning, China could further enhance its influence in WHO without matching U.S. contributions by leveraging support from its Health Silk Road and Belt and Road Initiative member countries.
If the U.S. continues its retreat from multilateral health initiatives, China will inevitably fill the gap, shaping global health priorities in ways that may not always align with U.S. interests. A diminished U.S. presence in WHO means losing the ability to advocate for transparency, high scientific standards, and equitable access to health resources. It also weakens the country’s ability to set global health norms, direct funding toward critical initiatives, and lead emergency response efforts.
As a scientist and global health expert, I cannot overstate the importance of collaborative, science-driven health policy. The U.S. must recognize that disengagement from the WHO is not just an administrative decision—it is a strategic and public health misstep that weakens national security, scientific progress, and global influence. To safeguard its role in global health, the U.S. should remain engaged with WHO and global health institutions to ensure continued access to critical health data and decision-making processes. Strengthening investment in public health and STEM fields is crucial to maintaining leadership in medical research, biotechnology, and disease surveillance.
Public health is not just a national issue—it is a global security concern. If the U.S. steps back, others will step forward. The question is: will America lead, or will it be forced to follow?
How could this withdrawal affect the U.S.-China health cooperation? In your view, why is bilateral health cooperation important, and how can both sides work together on global health despite ongoing disputes over national security and intellectual property protection?
Ultimately, withdrawing from WHO risks isolating the U.S. from global health decision-making and weakening its ability to influence critical issues, including its engagement with China. Rather than retreating from multilateral health cooperation, the U.S. should seek to strengthen its leadership in global health while maintaining pragmatic engagement with China. The reality is that health crises do not recognize borders, and collaboration—even in limited forms—remains essential for protecting lives and ensuring long-term global stability.
I believe that targeted cooperation on non-sensitive health issues provides another pathway forward. While collaboration on high-tech biotech advancements may remain contentious, joint efforts in areas such as antimicrobial resistance, non-communicable diseases, and pandemic preparedness could serve as starting points for broader engagement. These issues are critical to both nations and can be addressed without escalating geopolitical tensions. By focusing on shared interests and maintaining open channels of communication, the U.S. and China can continue to work together in ways that benefit global health security, even as broader diplomatic challenges persist.
Even in the face of disputes over national security and intellectual property (IP) protection, both sides can find ways to collaborate on global health. One approach is leveraging neutral platforms for engagement, such as the G20, ASEAN, or regional health alliances, which can serve as depoliticized spaces for discussion. Another strategy is fostering joint public-private partnerships, where multinational companies, universities, and research institutions collaborate on health initiatives, sidestepping direct government negotiations. Establishing data and information-sharing agreements modeled after frameworks in climate science could also build trust while safeguarding sensitive information. Additionally, third-party mediation through international organizations such as WHO (if the U.S. remains a member) or the World Bank could facilitate cooperative health projects, helping to bridge gaps in trust.
The U.S.-China AI race has been ongoing for years. Do you think the two countries can collaborate in using AI to address global health challenges? If so, in what way, and what barriers need to be overcome?
The United States and China have a long history of scientific collaboration, particularly in health and technology, despite the ongoing geopolitical tensions. Since the signing of the U.S.-China Agreement on Cooperation in Science and Technology in 1979, both nations have recognized that scientific exchange can foster mutual well-being and prosperity. Over the decades, cooperation between the U.S. and Chinese Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has led to joint research on folic acid, HIV/AIDS, and other public health issues. In the 2010s, the U.S. and China were each other’s largest collaborators in stem cell research, with a significant percentage of laboratories having Chinese-born scientists. Given this precedent, there is potential for renewed collaboration in artificial intelligence (AI) to address global health challenges, provided that both sides can navigate the political and security concerns surrounding AI applications.
One of the most promising areas for AI collaboration in global health is biotechnology and drug discovery. AI-driven research can accelerate drug development by analyzing vast datasets to identify potential therapeutic compounds, predict disease patterns, and streamline clinical trials. However, this area of cooperation faces significant obstacles due to concerns about data security and the potential misuse of biological data. In recent years, companies such as WuXi Biologics and others have come under scrutiny in the U.S. over fears that biomedical data could be misappropriated for nefarious purposes, including bioweapon development. While such concerns must be taken seriously, they should not entirely preclude AI-driven health collaboration. There are numerous areas within AI and healthcare that remain neutral and can serve as starting points for engagement.
For example, AI-powered health tools can strengthen health systems without directly involving sensitive biomedical data. Disease surveillance and outbreak detection, for instance, rely on AI to monitor public health trends, identify emerging threats, and enable faster response times to infectious disease outbreaks. AI-driven diagnostic tools and prognosis models can enhance clinical decision-making, particularly in regions with limited healthcare infrastructure. Remote healthcare delivery, such as telemedicine supported by AI-driven diagnostics, can expand access to medical services in underserved populations. AI can also support healthcare workforce management by optimizing hospital operations, streamlining administrative tasks, and improving patient care efficiency. I believe that these applications of AI in healthcare do not pose immediate national security risks and can benefit both countries as well as the broader global community.
Despite these opportunities, significant barriers must be addressed for meaningful U.S.-China AI cooperation in health to take place. Chief among these are geopolitical tensions and national security concerns, which have already impacted scientific exchanges and led to a decline in cross-border collaboration. The same factors that have driven American students away from studying in China and encouraged Chinese scientists to return home also threaten to limit cooperation in AI-driven health research. To move forward, both countries must establish neutral platforms for engagement. Even if direct bilateral cooperation remains difficult, multilateral organizations such as the G20, ASEAN, and regional health alliances can provide depoliticized forums for discussion and project implementation.
Additionally, a detailed analysis of AI health tools and their objectives could help delineate areas of “safe” collaboration. By clearly defining which AI applications do not pose security risks—such as those focused on public health surveillance, diagnostics, and healthcare system efficiency—both sides can establish mutual trust and carve out areas for engagement. Transparent guidelines on data sharing, intellectual property rights, and ethical AI use could further facilitate collaboration while addressing security concerns.
Ultimately, while AI cooperation in global health faces significant political and strategic obstacles, the potential benefits make it an avenue worth exploring. By focusing on neutral areas of health AI—such as disease surveillance, diagnostics, and telemedicine—both nations can contribute to global health improvements while avoiding contentious issues. Restoring trust through well-defined engagement platforms and depoliticized cooperation can help ensure that AI serves as a tool for advancing global health rather than becoming another flashpoint in U.S.-China relations.
Could you share your study abroad experiences in Beijing with us? What initially motivated you to visit China, and what did you gain from your time there?
My journey to Beijing was driven by a lifelong passion for the Chinese language and culture. From an early age, I dedicated myself to studying Chinese, knowing that I wanted to integrate it into my career in a meaningful way. Initially, my ambition was to research Eastern and Western medicines to develop innovative therapeutics, which led me to study in Xi’an, China before moving to Beijing. During that time, I not only deepened my Chinese language skills but also had the opportunity to study and work with traditional Chinese medicine (TCM). This experience solidified my desire to remain engaged with China and inspired me to explore ways to bridge scientific and medical collaboration between the U.S. and China.
Although I ultimately did not pursue a career in TCM or in integrating Eastern and Western medicines, my time in China instilled in me a deep appreciation for international collaboration in health and science. The reality is that health challenges do not recognize national borders—diseases spread globally, and medical advancements rely on shared knowledge and resources. I came to understand in China the critical role of data sharing, joint research, and open communication in addressing public health crises.
My time in Beijing, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic, further shaped my perspective on the intersection of the U.S.-China health cooperation and diplomacy. Living in China during this period, I witnessed firsthand the stark contrast between the ways the two countries approached the crisis. In the early stages of the pandemic, there was a brief window where cooperation and trust in information-sharing seemed possible. However, as the crisis unfolded, health quickly became politicized, and mutual finger-pointing replaced what could have been a collaborative effort to combat a threat that transcended national boundaries. This turning point reinforced my desire to work at the nexus of global health and U.S.-China relations, striving to foster dialogue and cooperation in ways that go beyond political disputes.
From my early experiences in Xi’an to my years spent in Beijing, and now through my work at the intersection of health diplomacy, I have come to appreciate the many layers required to sustain meaningful collaboration. Understanding cultural similarities and differences, language nuances, health systems, economics, governance structures, and partnerships is essential in building equitable and effective health solutions. Every time I return to China, I gain new insights into how bilateral health cooperation can be strengthened—not only between the U.S. and China but on a global scale. My experiences have reinforced that despite challenges, there is always space for engagement, and I remain committed to fostering sustainable partnerships that advance public health worldwide.
Geopolitical tensions, concerns about academic freedom, and fears of surveillance have deterred some young Americans from studying in China. From your perspectives, what can both countries do to promote more student exchanges, especially to attract more American students to China?
I agree that in recent years, geopolitical tensions, concerns about academic freedom, and fears of surveillance have discouraged many young Americans from studying in China. However, as someone who has studied and lived in China on multiple occasions and is now working at the intersection of U.S.-China global health cooperation, I cannot overstate the value of firsthand experience in understanding China’s complexities. Exposure to China provides critical cultural, linguistic, and policy insights that are essential for shaping a more informed and effective U.S.-China relationship in the future.
Strained relations between the two countries should not mean sacrificing America’s ability to cultivate a new generation of “China hands”—experts with in-depth, on-the-ground experience. Maintaining strong academic and cultural exchange programs is crucial not only for fostering mutual understanding but also for preparing future leaders who can navigate the complexities of U.S.-China engagement. Chinese students who aspire to work closely with the United States benefit from this exchange just as much as their American counterparts. To ensure continued dialogue and collaboration, both nations must take proactive steps to revitalize educational exchanges and make studying in China a more attractive and feasible option for American students.
China has already made efforts to welcome more international students, including Americans, by easing visa restrictions, implementing visa-free entry for certain countries, extending visa-free transit periods, and offering generous scholarship programs. Chinese Government Scholarships, for example, cover full tuition fees, living expenses, accommodation stipends, and health insurance for international students pursuing undergraduate, master’s, and Ph.D. degrees. These initiatives demonstrate China’s openness to international academic exchange, but the United States must also take steps to encourage its students to take advantage of these opportunities.
Rather than discouraging young Americans from studying in China, U.S. policymakers should actively invest in exchange programs that develop the next generation of U.S.-China experts. A key first step would be reinstating past programs, such as the Fulbright Program in China and Hong Kong, which was shut down in 2020 by executive order. Since 1979, this program has sent thousands of American students and researchers to China, strengthening academic and cultural ties. Reviving Fulbright and similar programs would send a clear signal that educational engagement remains a priority.
Beyond formal degree programs, US based universities should also integrate short-term study trips, semester exchanges, and immersive language programs into their curricula.
When in-person exchanges are not feasible, universities should invest in virtual language exchange programs, discussion groups, and remote collaboration opportunities with Chinese students. High schools should also introduce more extracurricular programs focused on U.S.-China relations, providing younger students with early exposure to the language and culture. Creating pathways for students to visit China at a young age will not only build interest in future study abroad opportunities but also cultivate long-term engagement in U.S.-China affairs.
Ultimately, governments, academic institutions, and private organizations must work together to ensure that educational exchanges remain a cornerstone of the U.S.-China relationship. While political and security concerns are valid, cutting off academic and cultural ties will only deepen misunderstandings and hinder the ability of future leaders to navigate an increasingly complex global landscape. Investing in student exchanges today is an investment in a more informed, capable, and globally engaged generation that can foster dialogue and cooperation between the U.S. and China for years to come.
