Why Withdrawing From UNHRC Matters to Infection Control Personnel

UNHCR

(Adobe Stock 571611677 by UNHCR by elmar gubisch)

As infection preventionists (IPs) and public health professionals, we know that disease does not respect borders. The US withdrawal from the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) and the defunding of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) are not just political moves—they directly impact global health security, infectious disease control, and our ability to prevent future pandemics.

(Of course, this is just one of the many changes: the withdrawal from the World Health Organization, the halting of USAID, the HHS gag order, and everything else that has happened since January 20, 2025.)

Here’s why this decision matters to infection prevention and control (IPC) professionals:

1. Increased Risk of Emerging Infectious Diseases

The UNHRC and UNRWA are essential in delivering health care, vaccinations, and infection control programs to vulnerable populations. However, cutting funding to these agencies will mean millions of people in conflict zones and refugee camps will lack access to vaccines, basic sanitation, and disease surveillance.

• This creates unmonitored reservoirs of infectious diseases, increasing the risk of outbreaks of tuberculosis (TB), measles, polio, cholera, and other preventable diseases that can quickly spread beyond borders.
• Without these agencies, early warning systems for outbreaks are weakened, reducing our ability to respond before an epidemic becomes a pandemic.

2. Pandemic Preparedness Takes a Major Hit

The COVID-19 pandemic showed us the devastating consequences of delayed international response and a lack of global cooperation in infection control. Organizations like the UNHRC and the World Health Organization (WHO) coordinate global infectious disease monitoring, pandemic response strategies, and healthcare worker training, all of which are now threatened by US disengagement.

• Without US involvement, disease surveillance programs in low-resource regions could collapse, making it harder to detect and contain new viral threats like avian flu, Ebola, or antibiotic-resistant superbugs.
• The decision isolates the US from critical global conversations about pandemic preparedness, making it harder for our health care system to respond effectively to the next global health crisis.

3. Increased Burden on Health Care and Infection Control in the US

When international health programs collapse, the impact does not stay overseas—it hits American hospitals and healthcare facilities.

• With less global control of infectious diseases, the burden shifts to US hospitals, emergency rooms, and infection control teams to manage imported infections and drug-resistant pathogens.
• The spread of vaccine-preventable diseases, antimicrobial resistance (AMR), and emerging infections means hospitals will face more outbreaks, higher patient loads, and increased infection control challenges.
• Travel-related infections could overwhelm infection prevention programs, increasing the risk of nosocomial (hospital-acquired) infections.

4. Loss of US Leadership in Global Infection Control

For decades, the US has led global infection control, antimicrobial resistance (AMR) initiatives, and pandemic response efforts.

The withdrawal signals a retreat from global health collaboration, giving more power to nations that may not prioritize infection prevention, disease surveillance, or antimicrobial stewardship.

This weakens international guidelines on IPC standards, potentially leading to inconsistent or ineffective infection control measures worldwide.

The importance of UNHRC is exemplified at the 421^st Meeting of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestine People (CEIRPP) on February 5, 2025, a statement from UNHRC Commissioner General Philippe Lazzarini read by Greta Gunnarsdottir, “Since October 2023, we have delivered 2/3rds of all food assistance, providing shelter to over a million displaced persons, and vaccinated quarter of a million children against polio. Since the ceasefire began, UNRWA has distributed food to more than 750,000 people. We conduct some 17,000 medical consultations every day and have expanded our health services, including in Gaza City and in the north of Gaza.”

5. Impact on Funding and Research for Infection Prevention

Many IPC professionals rely on international funding, research collaboration, and policy guidance from organizations like WHO, the UNHRC, and USAID.

• The US withdrawal cuts funding for global health programs, which could result in fewer resources for IPC research, fewer opportunities for collaboration, and a decline in support for low-resource health care settings.
• Hospitals and infection prevention programs in the US may see reduced funding for infectious disease surveillance, AMR programs, and outbreak response training.

What Infection Control Professionals Can Do

• Advocate for global infection prevention policies—We must push for continued U.S. involvement in global health security initiatives.
• Educate policymakers—IPs must engage with policymakers and health leaders to emphasize the importance of global collaboration in IPC.
• Strengthen hospital and local infection control measures—With reduced global support, US health care facilities must reinforce internal infection prevention protocols, including stronger AMR stewardship and enhanced outbreak response plans.
• Stay informed and vocal—As frontline defenders against infectious diseases, IPC professionals must raise awareness about the real-world consequences of these decisions on public health and patient safety.

Final Thoughts

The US withdrawal from the UNHRC and the defunding of UNRWA do not just impact politics—they have direct consequences for IPs, hospitals, and public health security. By isolating itself from global health efforts, the U.S. is making future pandemics more likely, increasing the burden on healthcare workers, and weakening our ability to control infectious diseases both abroad and at home.

Now more than ever, IPs must advocate for global cooperation, robust surveillance, and policies that prioritize public health over politics.