Over the last seven decades and continuing to the present day, the World Health Organization (W.H.O), an agency under the United Nations, plays an important role in improving public health worldwide. The W.H.O. is currently involved in flu surveillance, tracking resistance of drugs and antibiotics, and conducting studies, including teen mental health (World Health Organization). However, in 2025, President Trump announced plans for the country’s withdrawal from this organization and the suspension of funding. Many experts believe that America’s withdrawal from the World Health Organization may cause detrimental effects on the American people. These experts include Apoorva Mandavalli and Lawrence Gostin. Apoorva Mandavalli is a New York Times award-winning journalist who specializes in science and global health. Mandavalli has stated her stance in her article: Leaving the W.H.O Could Hurt Americans on a Range of Health Matters. The New York Times’s audience, including Mandavalli’s, typically appeals to older, educated, and affluent adult readers who care about current events. Additionally, her audience appreciates more detailed analysis, which is why they choose to read article formats. Therefore, Mandavalli provides plenty of details and background information and appeals to ethos frequently throughout her article. Lawrence Gostin is an expert in the field of public and global health law. Additionally, he serves as an advisor to the W.H.O. In his appearance on a video interview for PBS News Hour, Gostin voiced his negative views towards the decision of withdrawal. PBS News Hour’s audience, including Gostin’s, is educated and older adults who are highly engaged in politics and current events. Gostin also appeals to people of authority as he proposes alternatives to withdrawal. Therefore, Gostin’s argument is concise and powerful as he appeals to ethos, logos, and pathos throughout the video. Both Apoorva Mandavalli and Lawrence Gostin successfully argue against the withdrawal of the U.S. from W.H.O. with the use of rhetorical strategies.

In her article, Mandavalli first uses menacing diction to draw attention to the negative impacts of leaving the organization. She writes, “If the United States loses access to the W.H.O.’s information and data sharing, online reports and informal communications may fill some of the void, but they may be muffled, filtered, or marred by misinformation” (Mandavalli). Mandavalli uses menacing diction such as “muffled”, “filtered”, and “marred” in order to highlight the potential dangerousness of misinformation from leaving W.H.O. “Muffled” can be associated with suppression, “filtered” can be associated with being misleading, and “marred” can be associated to imperfection. Readers can then imagine misinformation, especially in medicine, to be extremely harmful and even life-threatening. This diction appeals to pathos as it can leave readers with a sense of urgency and fear for their future well-being. Both rhetorical strategies help Mandavalli to demonstrate why withdrawal is a bad idea. Throughout the article, Mandavalli also backs her claim with heavy utilization of ethos as she quotes from numerous credible sources who are related to the organization. For instance, she quotes from Anil Soni, chief executive of the W.H.O. foundation, who said that leaving the organization leads to “implications for American businesses.” Opting out of the W.H.O. causes America to lose the ability to “set the evidence and quality standards that enable competitive positioning of U.S. companies and directly lead to U.S. businesses.” In other words, American companies and businesses will be singled out by other companies if they do not follow the W.H.O. regulations (Mandavalli). Through this statement, Mandavalli widens the scope of who will be affected by the withdrawal. She introduces the idea that the withdrawal would have a negative economic impact. This definitely will raise the attention of her audience, who are involved in pharmaceutical companies or businesses, and indirectly those who consume from them. Notably, Mandavalli acknowledges the flaws in the organization while appealing to logos. She writes, W.H.O. is “often criticized as a lumbering bureaucracy, too conservative in its approach and too slow to action” (Mandavalli). Additionally, she validates the fact that experts have attempted to reform the organization for decades and haven’t made huge progress (Mandavalli). Yet, this does not deter her argument. She summarizes a statement from Dr. Thomas Frieman, the previous CDC director, by writing: “Yet there is no other organization that can match the W.H.O.’s reach or influence in the world” (Mandavalli). Since W.H.O is associated with the United Nations, it is logical to assume that W.H.O does have major influence on a global scale. Mandavalli uses the established influence of the organization to show that, regardless of how the United States feels, being in the organization despite the flaws is still better than being without. Additionally, by showing that Mandavalli was open to other points of view, she further establishes her credibility, which appeals to ethos. Ultimately, Mandavalli utilizes plenty of ethos and background information to provide a persuasive argument on why America should not withdraw from W.H.O.

In contrast to Mandavalli’s written article, Lawrence Gostin made an appearance on PBS NewsHour in order to address the concerns about the situation. First, Gostin starts with an extremely strong claim. He confidently says that by withdrawing from the W.H.O., he only sees America “alone, isolated, not stronger” (PBS NewsHour 01:17). Gostin utilizes gloomy diction in order to strengthen his argument. The words “alone” and “isolated” appeal to pathos, since these words can cause the audience to feel fearful of their futures. He then uses “not stronger,” which is the opposite of “alone and isolated”. Clearly, Gostin is mindful of his audience’s interest in America, politics, and current events. As a result, his audience can infer that with the decision of withdrawal, their country will become weaker–a highly undesirable outcome that can harm it’s citizens. By starting with this strong claim, Gostin is able to spark curiosity within his audience while appealing to pathos. Another significant factor in the interview is that Gostin also acknowledges the opposing view of withdrawal, which is the idea that the U.S. “is shouldering an unfair financial burden.” He explains by saying that W.H.O. has “funding that is roughly one quarter of U.S. C.D.C [Center for Disease Control and Prevention]. So, for a global institution, it is chronically underfunded…United States shouldn’t pay less, but other countries should pay more”. Gostin then goes on to propose an alternative proposition which is for President Trump to negotiate a deal for better financial oversight while maintaining membership in W.H.O (PBS NewsHour 02:00). By acknowledging the other point of view, Gostin shows objectiveness towards the subject as it is evident that he has considered different outcomes. Additionally, Gostin can not only build trust with his audience, but also attempt to move those with opposing views. This strengthens Gostin’s credibility, thereby appealing to ethos. Lastly, Gostin brings out that the data from W.H.O is extremely important to the U.S. since “pharmaceutical industry, the NIH, needs these data to develop vaccine, therapies, and other life saving tools that we rely on” (PBS NewsHour 04:29). This statement appeals to logos because a vast majority of Gostin’s audience and just the general public rely on pharmaceuticals in some way or another. The audience can infer that there would be a huge shift and overall downgrade in medicine that they may need if withdrawal were to occur. Ultimately, acknowledging how withdrawal can impact nearly all individuals further strengthens Gostin’s argument.

Clearly, both rhetors use powerful rhetorical strategies to address their concerns. Mandavalli’s written article appeals mainly to ethos as she introduces a significant amount of credible sources to back up her claim. Additionally, Mandavalli provides plenty of background information, which can benefit those in her audience who might’ve been reading on this topic for the first time. In contrast to a written article, a video interview format can appeal to a wider range of audience since it is short, concise, and informative. Furthermore, a video format can strengthen the audience’s emotional connection with the speaker, since the speaker can show emotion and change the tone in his voice. The only downside would be the lack of background information Gostin can provide in the duration of five minutes. However, the video mentions an op-ed Gostin wrote for the Washington Post that further builds on his reasoning. His audience is able to access this article if they’re more interested in the subject. Lastly, Gostin strategically utilizes all three rhetorical appeals (ethos, logos, and pathos) to strengthen his claim. Ultimately, both rhetors utilize rhetorical strategies to argue against the withdrawal of the U.S. from W.H.O, but Gostin’s video interview appeals extremely well to his audience and is much more effective in persuasion.

Sources

• Mandavilli, Apoorva. "Leaving the W.H.O. Could Hurt Americans on a Range of Health Matters." The New York Times, 29 Jan. 2025.
• PBS NewsHour. "The Potential Impacts of Trump's Decision to Withdraw from the World Health Organization." YouTube, 21 Jan. 2025.
• World Health Organization. Who We Are. World Health Organization.