Is Trump Transition Team Pushing for WHO Exit on Day One?
President-elect Donald Trump’s transition team is pushing for the U.S. to exit the World Health Organization (WHO) on the first day of the new administration, the Financial Times (FT) reported.
FT cited “experts,” including Georgetown global health professor Lawrence Gostin, who spoke with the transition team. Gostin said the move would be “catastrophic” for global health.
“America is going to leave a huge vacuum in global health financing and leadership,” Gostin told FT. “I see no one that is going to fill the breach.”
The U.S. historically has been the single-largest contributor to the WHO. In 2022-23, the U.S. shelled out $1.284 billion to the organization, which FT reported was about 16% of its funding. If the U.S. were to withdraw, it would eliminate the WHO’s biggest source of funding and leadership and hamper its ability to direct global public health.
In 2020, the Trump administration initiated the process to sever ties with the WHO and redirect the funding to U.S. global health priorities. However, when President Joe Biden took office, he canceled the withdrawal on his first day.
Some funding was withheld that year, making the U.S. only the third-largest contributor in 2020-21 — behind Germany and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
The experts told FT that some members of Trump’s team want to initiate the process immediately and move much more quickly this time.
Ashish Jha, Biden’s former White House COVID-19 response coordinator, said the team wanted to make the move on day one because of the “symbolism” of reversing Biden’s action. Jha said some members of the team want to stay in the organization and push for reform, but the members who want to cut ties completely are winning out.
Dr. Kat Lindley, a senior fellow at FLCCC Family Medicine and president of the Global Health Project, told The Defender, “In my opinion, the WHO cannot be reformed. Corruption is rampant, especially in its compromised relationship with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, GAVI alliance and other public-private partnerships.”
Lindley said:
“President Trump has tried to get us out of the WHO before and I am looking forward to him finally doing it this time.
“There is no need for a global supranational agency to oversee the health of United States citizens. We need to return to principles of individualized medicine, informed consent and not one-size-fits-all public health.”
Internist, bioweapons expert and WHO critic Dr. Meryl Nass wrote on her Substack that the announcement was “Great news, if reliable!” noting the article cited only “globalist attorney” Gostin and “hapless former COVID czar Ahish Jha.”
Gostin warned that if the U.S. were to withdraw, the WHO would have to cut its scientific staff and would “struggle to respond to health emergencies.” He said European countries were not likely to increase their funding and warned that in response, China might seek greater control over the organization.
“It would not be a smart move as withdrawal would cede leadership to China,” he said.
The Financial Times said the WHO did not comment directly on the news.
Earlier this month, reporters asked WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus if he had concerns that the new Trump administration would negatively affect WHO financing and that of other global health organizations.
Tedros said it was a “transition time,” and the organization hoped to continue cooperating and working together with U.S. policymakers.
The transition team did not respond to The Defender’s request for comment.
The New York Times reported last week that other Global Health organizations, like the Gates-founded and largely U.S.-financed public-private partnership Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, are also concerned the Trump administration will cut their funding.
Several articles and op-eds published in the last month in outlets including Politico, The Conversation and Euronews also predicted major cuts in funding for international global health organizations once Trump takes office.
#ExittheWHO
Over the last two years, WHO members have been debating revisions to the International Health Regulations (IHR) and a proposed pandemic agreement.
Proposed amendments to the IHR included a controversial set of proposals, which proponents argued were necessary to address “challenges and gaps” exposed by the COVID-19 pandemic.
Critics said the amendments posed risks to national sovereignty and personal liberties, promoting things like a digital ID scheme.
The proposals gave rise to the “Exit the WHO” movement among health freedom activists concerned with the concentration of power in an organization that had promoted COVID-19 mandates, mass surveillance and liability for Big Pharma.
Just before its June 1 deadline, the WHO passed a set of IHR revisions in an outcome the agency described as “historic.” However, critics also claimed victory, pointing out that the approved version lacks most of the proposals opposed by health freedom activists.
A new pandemic treaty has not yet been finalized.
Lindley said although the WHO may have been founded with “noble intentions,” the growing role of public-private partnerships and foundations in financing the organization, led it to shift “toward the weaponization of public health which was evident during the COVID pandemic.”
“Since then, the WHO has been trying to establish itself as a global authority on health and future pandemic responses via pandemic treaty and amendments to IHR,” she said.
“There is no doubt that the WHO has failed in its response to the COVID-19 pandemic, and has largely continued this failure by ignoring its own pharmacovigilance database and continuing to recommend COVID-19 vaccine to older adults, immunocompromised and pregnant females.”
See more here The Defender
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
Saeed Qureshi
| #
The website (https://www.law.georgetown.edu/faculty/lawrence-o-gostin/) describes
Lawrence O. Gostin (B.A., State University of New York, Brockport; J.D., Duke; LL.D. (Hon.), State University of New York; LL.D. (Hon.), University of Sydney.
There is a visible lack of work and expertise in the scientific/chemistry areas, other than high-ranking positions in health and science-related committees—something to be kept in reading the article.
“Prof. Gostin is the Director of the World Health Organization Collaborating Center on National and Global Health Law. He is working with the WHO and the Intergovernmental Negotiation Body (INB) to draft a Pandemic Treaty. He also currently serves on WHO’s Review Committee for amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR).”
“Prof. Gostin is an elected lifetime Member of the National Academy of Medicine/National Academy of Sciences. He has served on the National Academy’s Board on Health Sciences Policy, the Board on Population Health, the Human Subjects Review Board, and the Committee on Science, Technology, and Law.”
“Professor Gostin has been at the center of public policy and law through multiple epidemics from AIDS, SARS, and Influenza H1N1 to Ebola, MERS, Zika, and mpox.”
“Gostin warned that if the U.S. were to withdraw, the WHO would have to cut its scientific staff …” I think it would be good, as there is no science or scientific staff in health or regulator agencies, but a fake and false one (https://bioanalyticx.com/what-is-science-and-who-are-scientists/).
Reply