Trump’s Shock Withdrawal from WHO: A Global Health Crisis in the Making?
The international health community was thrown into turmoil in January 2025 when President Donald Trump announced the United States’ withdrawal from the World Health Association (WHO). Trump, citing the organization’s perceived mishandling of the COVID-19 pandemic and a lack of necessary reforms, declared that “WHO is demanding vrey onerous payments from the US,” emphasizing the relatively smaller contributions of countries like China.
Germany, the WHO’s second-largest donor, voiced deep concern over the US exit. German Health Minister Karl Lauterbach stated, “We will try too persuade Donald Trump to reconsider this decision” as reported by Reuters on January 21, 2025.
WHO spokesman Tarik Jašarević appealed directly to President Trump, urging him to reconsider the withdrawal. Jašarević expressed hope for “a constructive dialog in the interests of everyone, for Americans but also for people around the world.”
The ramifications of this move are profound and far-reaching, potentially destabilizing global health security.
Financial Blow to WHO
The US is WHO’s largest financial contributor, providing approximately 18% of its funding. This translates to a notable loss of US$1.224 billion from the WHO’s two-year budget for 2024-2025, wich stands at US$6.8 billion.The impact is particularly acute in areas like HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis, where the US funds 75% and over 50% respectively. This withdrawal comes at a time when global health needs are more pressing than ever, further straining resources at a critical juncture.
The US is also the world’s leading global health donor,contributing US$15.8 billion in 2022 alone. this loss in funding could severely hamper WHO’s ability to respond to global health emergencies and implement vital programs.
Pandemic Preparedness Under Threat
Trump’s decision raises serious questions about the US commitment to global pandemic preparedness. The WHO plays a crucial role in coordinating international responses to outbreaks, providing technical expertise, and setting global health standards. Withdrawing from the organization weakens this critical framework,leaving the world more vulnerable to future pandemics.
The Trump Administration’s Lasting Footprint on Global Health
The Trump administration’s approach to global health was a complex tapestry woven with threads of continuity, disruption, and controversy. While some programs received consistent support, others faced drastic policy shifts that significantly altered the US’s role in international health initiatives.
Engagement with the World Health Organization (WHO), for example, exhibited a peculiar duality. despite escalating tensions during the COVID-19 pandemic,the US maintained funding and collaboration on critical issues like influenza surveillance and vaccine growth. This dedication was evident in the US’s continued participation in the global influenza surveillance network, providing vital input on the annual seasonal flu vaccine composition.On another front, the fight against HIV/AIDS saw ongoing commitment through the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR). this cornerstone of US global health policy received significant funding throughout Trump’s presidency.However, PEPFAR navigated political hurdles, facing annual authorization renewals due to conservative concerns regarding abortion funding.
Abortion, a deeply divisive issue, witnessed a significant reversal of Obama-era policies. Trump reinstated the “mexico City policy,” demanding foreign charities receiving US family planning funds abstain from providing abortion services or advice. This policy,widely criticized as the “global gag rule,” was further extended to restrict funding for organizations offering any form of abortion support.
Adding to the controversy,the Trump administration withdrew funding from the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA),citing its alleged involvement with China’s one-child policy.
The administration’s stance on vaccines also sparked debate. The nomination of Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a vocal vaccine skeptic, as Secretary of health and Human services raised alarms about potential policy shifts. Despite these concerns, US contributions to Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, remained consistent with previous years.
Funding for the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria was also maintained.
Undeniably, the US continued to lead in medical research. the National Institutes of Health (NIH) remained a major investor in global health research, supporting efforts to combat diseases like mpox and Ebola. Notably, Trump launched “Operation Warp Speed” to accelerate the development and distribution of a COVID-19 vaccine.
However, the long-term ramifications of the Trump administration’s policies on global health remain a subject of intense discussion. While initiatives like PEPFAR endured, others, such as the “Mexico City Policy,” generated significant backlash. The legacy of Trump’s approach will undoubtedly continue to shape the US’s role in global health for years to come.
Elon Musk’s Political Gamble: $1 Million Daily Giveaway for Trump Supporters
Billionaire tech mogul Elon Musk has made a bold move in the political arena, announcing a daily giveaway of $1 million to supporters of Donald Trump until the November 5th presidential election. But this unusual pledge comes with a caveat: the funds will only be awarded to those who demonstrate enthusiastic support for the former president.
Musk,known for his outspoken opinions and unwavering support for Trump,has escalated his involvement in politics with this highly publicized campaign contribution. While the motivation behind this unprecedented financial commitment remains unclear, it has ignited intense debate, both online and in legal circles. Critics argue that this large-scale,conditional donation could violate campaign finance laws,raising questions about its legality and ethical implications.
This move highlights the increasing influence of wealth in modern political campaigns. Musk’s substantial donation has undoubtedly captured public attention, injecting a new energy and intrigue into the already heated political landscape. But the real question remains: will this extravagant display of financial support sway voters towards Trump, or will it ultimately backfire, alienating potential supporters?
Global Health at Risk: What Happens If Other countries Follow the US out of WHO?
The US withdrawal from the World health Organization (WHO) under the Trump administration sent shockwaves through the global health community.But this unprecedented move raises another pressing question: will other countries follow suit?
To gain insight into the potential ramifications, we spoke exclusively with Dr. Lebanese Albright, former WHO Assistant Director-General and esteemed Senior Global Health Advisor.
“It’s a deeply concerning decision,” Dr. Albright expressed, referring to the US withdrawal. “The US has long been a champion and major funder of global health initiatives, with a significant presence in the WHO. Its withdrawal will have profound consequences for the organization, public health, and global health security.”
When asked about the potential for other countries to withdraw from WHO, Dr. Albright cautioned against a “domino effect” but acknowledged that the situation warrants serious consideration.
“While there are indeed lessons to be learned from WHO’s response to COVID-19, and the organization needs to improve its effectiveness and accountability,” she emphasized, “withdrawal is not the solution. It weakens the global health architecture at a time when international cooperation is more critical than ever.”
US Withdrawal from WHO: A Deeper Look at the Global Health Implications
The Trump administration’s decision to withdraw the United States from the World Health Organization (WHO) sent shockwaves through the global health community. While framing the move as a response to the organization’s handling of the COVID-19 pandemic, experts warn that the repercussions extend far beyond this single crisis.
“It’s shortsighted to isolate COVID-19 as the sole reason for withdrawal,” explains Dr. Albright, a renowned global health policy expert. “The US has long harbored concerns about WHO’s governance and management, but a complete withdrawal, especially during a pandemic, is a drastic measure that overlooks the broader implications for global health.”
Financially, the US contributes approximately 18% of WHO’s budget. Losing this crucial funding stream could cripple ongoing programs and services. “The loss of 18% is significant,” Dr. Albright emphasizes. “It could lead to deep cuts in programs, staffing reductions, and scaled-back operations across the board, impacting everything from pandemic response to essential services like vaccination campaigns and maternal health initiatives. Progress made in combating HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and other infectious diseases could also be jeopardized.”
Beyond WHO, the US is a leading global health donor, supporting crucial initiatives like PEPFAR, the Global Fund, and GAVI, The Vaccine Alliance.Dr. albright warns that redirecting funds from these vital programs could have devastating consequences: “We could see significant setbacks in our efforts to reduce maternal and child mortality, improve access to HIV/AIDS treatment, and boost vaccination coverage worldwide.”
The US withdrawal also casts a shadow over negotiations for a post-COVID-19 pandemic agreement, led by WHO. “Without US involvement, these negotiations could stall or even derail,” Dr.Albright cautions. “The agreement aims to strengthen global health security and solidarity, but without the necessary political and financial muscle from the US, it may lack the effectiveness needed to address global health threats effectively. This could also embolden countries resistant to WHO-led initiatives, further complicating the process.”
The withdrawal order even stipulates the removal of US staff and contractors from WHO, potentially severing vital collaborations, especially with the CDC, which has a long history of working with the organization. this could severely impact WHO’s operational capacity,particularly in technical areas where the US holds significant expertise.
While a mass exodus from WHO is unlikely, Dr. Albright anticipates shifts in leadership and influence within the organization. “China could seek to fill the void left by the US,” she observes, “potentially reshaping global health governance and setting a new dynamic between countries and WHO.”
The US withdrawal from WHO is a complex and consequential event with far-reaching implications for global health. While the administration’s stated reasons are focused on the pandemic, the ramifications are far broader and could have a lasting impact on the world’s ability to address global health challenges.
The Striking Evolution of Watches: From Practical Tools to Statement Pieces
Watches have come a long way from their utilitarian origins. What began as a simple way to tell time has transformed into a complex and engaging world of craftsmanship, technology, and personal expression.Today, a watch is as much a statement piece as it is a timekeeping device, reflecting the wearer’s individuality, style, and even their values.
At the heart of this evolution lies a constant interplay between innovation and tradition. The early invention of clocks and watches was fueled by the need for accuracy and precision. Water clocks, sundials, and spring-powered mechanisms were each groundbreaking advancements, paving the way for the complex timepieces we know today.
“Time is what we want most, but what we use worst,” said William Penn, highlighting the human tendency to both crave and squander time. Watches became a tool to manage this precious resource, allowing individuals to schedule their days, track progress, and navigate the complexities of modern life.
But watches are more than just functional objects.Throughout history, thay have become symbols of status, wealth, and power. From the intricate pocket watches of the 18th century to the luxury wristwatches of today, the materials, design, and craftsmanship reflect the aspirations and desires of the wearer.
The 20th century saw a surge in innovation, with the development of quartz movements and the rise of iconic watch brands like Rolex, Omega, and Patek Philippe. These brands became synonymous with quality, precision, and timeless elegance, appealing to a global audience.
Today, the watch industry continues to evolve, embracing new technologies and designs. Smartwatches,such as,combine conventional timekeeping with advanced features like fitness tracking and mobile connectivity,blurring the lines between technology and luxury.
But no matter how technological watches become, they will always retain their core essence: a reminder of the passage of time and the precious moments we experience.
