logo
Trump is right: The World Health Organization isn't working

Trump is right: The World Health Organization isn't working

The Hill15-03-2025
One of the first actions of the new Trump administration was to withdraw from the World Health Organization. Many public health advocates quickly raised alarm bells, citing longstanding arguments about the importance of the agency and what the U.S. stood to lose by withdrawing its membership and money.
It is unlikely that these advocates paused to consider that leaving the WHO is exactly the disruption needed after years of reform efforts that were long on talk but short on results. One of us knows this firsthand, having worked inside the WHO at the highest levels; the other has seen this as a private-sector innovator seeking to navigate its bureaucratic maze.
The WHO was created in 1948 with the objectives of the 'attainment by all peoples of the highest possible level of health' and to address the spread of infectious disease outbreaks across countries. U.S. leadership at the time and through the decades since has been critical to both the science of WHO and its finances.
The U.S. currently contributes just over $1 billion and is by far the largest national donor to the WHO budget. But the issue is not money, a mere .06 percent of the U.S. government budget. The issue is the organization.
The WHO at one point in its history was the world's true north star for infectious diseases and the promotion of health. Sadly, the organization has deteriorated, in both management effectiveness and scientific expertise, making it less efficient and more chaotic.
During COVID, when the world needed it most, the WHO failed at many levels. Delays in declaring COVID to be an airborne virus remain an astounding uncorrected error. Meanwhile, the central bureaucratic processes of WHO and COVAX (the Geneva-based coalition launched by the WHO to 'coordinate' the COVID response across agencies) often impeded rather than supported an effective response at regional and country levels.
Even those who acknowledge its limits often state that the WHO needs U.S. support because it performs key functions in medicines and vaccines that advance American private-sector interests in health. Or they say that, absent U.S. funding, the WHO will be dominated by America's enemies, with any chance for reform doomed as long as the U.S. remains on the outside looking in.
In fact, the reality is quite the opposite. None of WHO's functions determine the success or failure of the American private sector. Slow processes and heavy bureaucracy in working with the private sector through WHO's Framework for Engagement with Non-State Actors means that the agency is often a roadblock to advancing lifesaving American health products. And when it comes to America's putative enemies, concerns about China and other adversaries have been present during years of U.S. full funding.
WHO reform has been a theme for the last two decades for the U.S. Yet, despite recent assertions last month by WHO leadership that the organization has 'reformed totally,' it continues to have serious human resources issues, and even its own reform efforts (from strengthening country offices to addressing harassment after the U.N.s largest sexual abuse scandal) remain continuing problems.
The U.S. government does get value out of its relationship with WHO. Nonetheless, it is at far too great a price and for far too little return, at far too slow a pace. Yes, having a void in global health over time will hurt American interests, but continuing business as usual will hurt America and the world far more in the years ahead.
For those committed to serving the mission of global health, engagement rather than hand-wringing is the best strategy. What does this look like?
First, ensure that the withdrawal announcement from WHO results in changes. The disengagement should not be binary — either fully engaged or nothing. Making this announcement matter means launching negotiations for a retooling of the global health architecture.
Important funding meetings are happening this year, not just for the WHO but for all major 'global health initiatives,' including the Global Fund, which provides funding and leadership in the fight against HIV, tuberculosis and malaria and was created largely with American leadership. Leveraging the withdrawal notice period — however long it eventually is — to negotiate targeted roles for other institutions in the wake of pulling back from WHO is smart for America.
Second, look for immediate and better solutions to prepare the U.S. for the next pandemic. Past experience with COVID-19, Ebola and mPox have taught us that relying on public organizations with time-limited funding is always going to be a losing battle. Investments and lessons learned from Operation Warp Speed have laid the foundation for smarter approaches to pandemic response, whereby private organizations can step up to sustainably serve both non-emergency global health needs and outbreak roles, with customers as the primary funding mechanism.
Finally, work with other countries to remake a global health organization that is fit for purpose. The argument has always been that if you tore WHO down and started over, it would end up looking like it does today. This is not true. An organization that has strong regional offices, with an efficient, small central leadership and a focused mandate, would address both budget and mismanagement issues and set the organization up for succeeding at a narrower set of achievable, measurable, targeted goals.
Clearly, the abrupt halt to U.S. involvement in WHO has caused considerable immediate uncertainty for both global health programs and the many millions of patients around the world who benefit from U.S. financial, medicinal and scientific support. But it can also signal a new opportunity to fix at last what is broken and failing in global health.
Edward Kelley is the former director of service delivery and safety at the World Health Organization and head of Global Heath for Apiject Systems, an injection technology company. Jay Walker is chairman of Apiject and founder of over 60 companies, including priceline.com,
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

White House Slams Joy Behar's Recent Trump Comments And Warns Of ABC's ‘The View' 'Being The Next To Be Pulled Off The Air'
White House Slams Joy Behar's Recent Trump Comments And Warns Of ABC's ‘The View' 'Being The Next To Be Pulled Off The Air'

Yahoo

time7 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

White House Slams Joy Behar's Recent Trump Comments And Warns Of ABC's ‘The View' 'Being The Next To Be Pulled Off The Air'

The White House lashed out at Joy Behar after she said on ABC's The View that Donald Trump's attacks on his predecessor, Barack Obama, were motivated by jealousy, while noting the current president's role in the attack on the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. On Wednesday, Behar and the other View co-hosts talked about Obama's response to Trump's claim that his predecessor was guilty of treason. The Trump administration claims that Obama and his team conspired to alter intelligence assessments to boost the notion Russia was attempting to help Trump get elected in 2016. More from Deadline Candace Owens Accuses Brigitte Macron Of Bullying Her With Defamation Suit Over Claims French First Lady Was Born A Man: "Candace Owens Is Not Shutting Up" - Update Skydance Commits To CBS News Ombudsman, Pledges No DEI Policies As Company Seeks FCC Greenlight Of Paramount Merger Patrick Soon-Shiong Says He Plans To Take Los Angeles Times Public; Shares Will Be Offered Through Regulation A Financing - Update Obama's spokesperson called the allegations 'bizarre' and a 'weak attempt at distraction.' On The View, Behar said, 'First of all, who tried to overthrow the government on January 6th? Who was that again?' Behar added, 'The thing about him is is so jealous of Obama, because Obama is everything that he is not. Trim. Smart. Handsome. Happily married. And can sing Al Green's song Let's Stay Together better than Al Green.' White House spokesperson Taylor Rogers said, 'Joy Behar is an irrelevant loser suffering from a severe case of Trump Derangement Syndrome. It's no surprise that The View's ratings hit an all-time low last year. She should self-reflect on her own jealousy of President Trump's historic popularity before her show is the next to be pulled off air.' EW first reported on the White House response. Trump has celebrated the decision by CBS to cancel The Late Show with Stephen Colbert, hosted by another of his critics. On Tuesday, he predicted that ABC's Jimmy Kimmel 'is NEXT to go in the untalented Late Night Sweepstakes and, shortly thereafter, Fallon will be gone. These are people with absolutely NO TALENT, who were paid Millions of Dollars for, in all cases, destroying what used to be GREAT Television. It's really good to see them go, and I hope I played a major part in it!' At the same time, the White House highlighted Trump's claims about 2016. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, who has claimed that Obama's team was engaged in 'a years-long coup intended to subvert President Trump's entire presidency,' appeared at the White House press briefing to talk about the release of new documents. That was a 2017 GOP House Intelligence Committee report on Russian interference, casting doubt on the intelligence that Russian President Vladimir Putin favored Trump to win the election. But a 2020 bipartisan report from the Senate Intelligence Committee concluded that Russia did interfere in the election, while detailing contacts between Trump campaign officials and Russian influence actors. Obama's spokesperson said that 'nothing in the document issued last week undercuts the widely accepted conclusion that Russia worked to influence the 2016 presidential election but did not successfully manipulate any votes.' On The View, other hosts said that Trump's focus on Obama, and the referral to the Justice Department to investigate, was an attempt to distract from the Jeffrey Epstein story. Alyssa Farah Griffin, who was Trump's director of strategic communications in his first term, said, 'I saw the intelligence that we had. I actually was with Mike Pence when he confronted Vladimir Putin in Signapore and said, 'We know what you tried to do in our elections, Do not do it again.' It was the consensus of the people in the first term, including the director of national intelligence that Russia did try to meddle in our elections.' Best of Deadline Everything We Know About Season 3 Of 'Euphoria' So Far 'Wednesday' Season 2: Everything We Know About The Cast, Premiere Date & More Everything We Know About 'Only Murders In The Building' Season 5 So Far

Supreme Court allows Trump to remove 3 Democrats on the Consumer Product Safety Commission
Supreme Court allows Trump to remove 3 Democrats on the Consumer Product Safety Commission

Yahoo

time7 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Supreme Court allows Trump to remove 3 Democrats on the Consumer Product Safety Commission

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Wednesday allowed the Trump administration to remove three Democratic members of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, who had been fired by President Donald Trump and then reinstated by a federal judge. The justices acted on an emergency appeal from the Justice Department, which argued that the agency is under Trump's control and the president is free to remove commissioners without cause. The three liberal justices dissented. The commission helps protect consumers from dangerous products by issuing recalls, suing errant companies and more. Trump fired the three Democrats on the five-member commission in May. They were serving seven-year terms after being nominated by President Joe Biden. U.S. District Judge Matthew Maddox in Baltimore ruled in June that the dismissals were unlawful. Maddox sought to distinguish the commission's role from those of other agencies where the Supreme Court has allowed firings to go forward. A month earlier, the high court's conservative majority declined to reinstate members of the National Labor Relations Board and the Merit Systems Protection Board, finding that the Constitution appears to give the president the authority to fire the board members 'without cause.' The three liberal justices dissented. The administration has argued that all the agencies are under Trump's control as the head of the executive branch. Maddox, a Biden nominee, noted that it can be difficult to characterize the product safety commission's functions as purely executive. The fight over the president's power to fire could prompt the court to consider overturning a 90-year-old Supreme Court decision known as Humphrey's Executor. In that case from 1935, the court unanimously held that presidents cannot fire independent board members without cause. The decision ushered in an era of powerful independent federal agencies charged with regulating labor relations, employment discrimination, the airwaves and much else. But it has long rankled conservative legal theorists who argue the modern administrative state gets the Constitution all wrong because such agencies should answer to the president. The Consumer Product Safety Commission was created in 1972. Its five members must maintain a partisan split, with no more than three representing the president's party. They serve staggered terms. That structure ensures that each president has 'the opportunity to influence, but not control,' the commission, attorneys for the fired commissioners wrote in court filings. They argued the recent terminations could jeopardize the commission's independence. ___ Mark Sherman, The Associated Press Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data

Supreme Court hands Trump a win on Consumer Product Safety Commission firings
Supreme Court hands Trump a win on Consumer Product Safety Commission firings

USA Today

time9 minutes ago

  • USA Today

Supreme Court hands Trump a win on Consumer Product Safety Commission firings

WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump can fire three Democratic members of the Consumer Product Safety Commission for now the Supreme Court said on July 23 in the latest decision boosting the ability of the president to control independent agencies. The ruling was made over the objections of the court's three liberal justices. 'Once again, this Court uses its emergency docket to de­stroy the independence of an independent agency, as estab­lished by Congress,' Justice Elena Kagan wrote. "By means of such actions, this Court may facilitate the permanent transfer of authority, piece by piece by piece, from one branch of Government to another." The five-member regulatory commission, created by Congress in 1972, aims to keep people from being injured or killed by defective or harmful products. Commissioners are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate in staggered seven-year terms to protect them from political or industry pressure and to protect the agency from abrupt changes in composition. By law, commissioners can be removed only for 'neglect of duty or malfeasance in office.' But, in May, Trump fired without cause the three members appointed by President Joe Biden: Mary Boyle, Alexander Hoehn-Saric and Richard Trumka Jr. A federal judge in Maryland ordered the commissioners reinstated, saying the threat to public safety from removing them outweighed any hardship the administration might suffer from keeping them on while the firings are being challenged. In his June ruling, U.S. District Judge Matthew Maddox also said the product safety commission is similar in structure and function to another independent agency that was the center of a landmark 1935 ruling − Humphrey's Executor v. U.S. − limiting the ability of the president to remove independent agency officials. 'Humphrey's Executor remains good law and is binding on this Court,' Maddox wrote. But the Trump administration said Maddox instead should've taken his cue from the Supreme Court's May decision allowing the president to fire Democratic members of two federal labor boards while the former members challenge their dismissals. The product safety commission is now effectively controlled by Biden's appointees even though Trump is president, lawyers for the government said in a filing. Decisions made by the commissioners who are 'hostile' to Trump's agenda have 'thrown the agency into chaos and have put agency staff in the untenable position of deciding which Commissioners' directives to follow,' the Justice Department said. Attorneys for the three commissioners appointed by Biden reminded the Supreme Court that the justices twice in the past year declined to review appeals court decisions that upheld restrictions on the president's ability to remove Consumer Product Safety Commission members without cause. And Maddox, the district judge, noted that the term of one of the three Biden appointees expires in October, giving Trump the chance to appoint her successor and to 'exert significant influence over the agency.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store