Trump’s inauguration yesterday and his immediate actions thereafter were frightening. One of the first things he did was to withdraw from the World Health Organization (WHO). He signed an executive action in the Oval Office to the process for terminating US membership:
“World Health ripped us off,” Trump said to reporters as he signed. His frustration with the WHO goes back to the height of the COVID era when he repeatedly criticized the WHO. At that point in 2001, he had already initiated a withdrawal. Yet, he failed to complete the process under US law governing the timeline for withdrawal and funding obligations to the agency.
The loss for the WHO would unquestionably be significant. The US is the WHO’s biggest donor and contributes about one fifth of the WHO’s total budget. But the withdrawal would also be a big loss for the US. The WHO plays a pivotal role in monitoring global health threats. Without a seat at the WHO’s international table, the US risks losing access to valuable data on emerging disease threats.
Trump’s order stated that the US was withdrawing “due to the organization’s mishandling of the COVID-19 pandemic that arose out of Wuhan, China, and other global health crises, its failure to adopt urgently needed reforms, and its inability to demonstrate independence from the inappropriate political influence of WHO member states.”
“This is the most cataclysmic decision,” said Lawrence Gostin, professor of global health law at Georgetown University and director of WHO’s Center on Global Health Law. “[This is] a grave wound to American national interests and our national security. This will really leave our agencies – like the CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] and NIH [National Institutes of Health] flying blind.”
The process of withdrawing from the WHO will last one year. This means that there is a slim chance for Trump’s advisors to persuade him to come to his senses. One can only hope.
18 Responses to Trump’s first day back in office: The United States will leave the World Health Organization
Leave a Reply
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
Trump is right. It came from a lab and the WHO tried to cover it up.
Your first sentence is a lie, your second sentence is nonsense. Trump’s inauguration speech was a catalogue of lies.
By the way Bob, do you know who the first person to split the atom was? Here’s a clue: it wasn’t an American. Trump lied.
@Michael Warren
The one most important thing I learned from Barack Obama…. “elections have consequences”
LOL
Putting public health institutions in the hands of wellness gurus, rabid antivaxxers and pseudoscientists https://news.immunologic.org/p/the-trump-administration-could-become do have consequences, RG. However, delusional MAGA idiots like you don’t seem to understand that they too are affected by said consequences. But I bet you and your ilk will fully enjoy your freedumb to pop those Nobel prize winning ivermectin pills as you please. While you are at it, don’t forget to support Dr. Oz by purchasing some of the supplements he peddles: https://www.iherb.com/pressreleases/dr-oz-announcement/1805. Thanks to deregulation, you never know what is in them, but your boy Ozzy says they will improve your health, and I believe him because he is handpicked by King Trump to lead Medicare and Medicaid. In the near future, I suppose grandpa can look forward to taking herbal remedies such as https://www.iherb.com/pr/now-foods-blood-pressure-health-90-veg-capsules/15014 instead of statins to control his high BP. I almost forgot, RFK Jr through his actions says that eating roadkill is a great way to attain sustenance. I look forward to the upcoming HHS health advisory on what to do with roadkill if you happen to come across one. I don’t know about you but I am looking forward to taking every government health advisory seriously.
As the fella said “…[you have to take Trump seriously, not literally]…” but I suggest you take him mostly literally too.
And cheer up, he also gave you the atom thing to snigger about, so there is something here for everybody!
the whole thing, including your comment and Elon Musk’s Nazi salute, are earily reminisent of Germany 1933
@Edzard
We can add to this Trump’s sweeping pardon of hundreds of violent criminals. By doing so, he has got himself a private army of thugs who not only are unconditionally loyal to him, but are also fully prepared and willing to use violence against anyone that Trump designates as adversary.
@Richard
Good point. Not to mention a lot of those thugs were put in jail for attacking and killing cops. Forget about Blue Lives Matter, it is more like Blue Lives Don’t Matter. On top of that, Trump unconditionally pardoned Ross Ulbricht https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cz7e0jve875o, a notorious drug dealer who was serving a life sentence: https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/ross-ulbricht-aka-dread-pirate-roberts-sentenced-life-federal-prison-creating. What next? Is Trump going to appoint Ulbricht to lead one of the many federal organizations? Maybe a Presidential Medal of Freedom is in order for Ulbricht.
“What next…”:
Roger Ver, Edward Snowden, Julian Assange
No.
Bullshit.
Bullshit again.
No, this is bullshit:
https://vigilantnews.com/post/top-10-most-outrageous-media-moments-from-trumps-first-day-in-office/
No, vigilant news are bullshit, too. You have been told that often enough, but you keep ignoring the fact.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/vigilant-news-bias/
is MBFC trust worthy
ChatGPT said:
ChatGPT
Media Bias/Fact Check (MBFC) is a widely used resource for evaluating media bias and factual accuracy, but its trustworthiness depends on how you assess its methodology, transparency, and criticisms.
Reasons MBFC May Be Trustworthy:
✅ Transparent Methodology: MBFC explains how it rates sources based on bias and factual reporting. It uses a mix of fact-checking, sourcing analysis, and bias indicators (e.g., loaded language, one-sided reporting).
✅ Independent Funding: MBFC claims to be independently funded through memberships, ads, and small donations, with no corporate or political funding.
✅ Consistency: It applies its rating criteria across the political spectrum, covering left, center, and right-leaning media.
Criticisms of MBFC:
❌ Subjectivity in Ratings: Some critics argue that bias assessments are subjective and that different analysts might reach different conclusions.
❌ Lack of Peer Review: Unlike academic research or journalistic fact-checking organizations (e.g., PolitiFact, Snopes, FactCheck.org), MBFC is run by a small team with limited transparency on individual raters’ expertise.
❌ Not a Primary Fact-Checker: MBFC does not conduct original investigative fact-checking; it rates sources based on existing fact-checks and content analysis.
Conclusion:
MBFC is useful as one tool for assessing media bias but should not be the sole authority on a source’s reliability. Cross-referencing with other fact-checkers and critically evaluating sources yourself is always recommended.
@OB
Can’t you think of any more arguments for calling a chatbot as a key witness? 😀
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_Bias/Fact_Check
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/vigilant-news-bias/
You are free to choose fact-checkers, if you think they are as disinterested as AI, that’s your choice.
Not really surprising.
sounds like fascism..lies like fascism… failed putsch like fascism… blind obediance like fascism…threatens to attack neighbouring countries like fascism and now salutes like fascism….need i say more
welcome to the freak show!!
MEGA
Make Europe Great Again