.jpg)
Originally published on www.standforhealthfreedom.com
President Trump issued an executive order on January 20, 2025, for the United States to withdraw from the World Health Organization. Executive orders are law until revoked, which could happen during this administration or in any that follow. Days after issuing this executive order, Trump stated at a rally in Las Vegas that the U.S. could "maybe" join again, if they "clean it up a bit."1 This is extremely troubling and shows us that we still have a lot of work to do with President Trump on health freedom issues.
Announcing the first withdrawal in 2020, the president cited mishandling of COVID and "other global health crises," influence from countries not aligned with America, lack of reform, and the "unfairly onerous" fees paid by the U.S. in comparison to other countries. This time around, there was no change or clarification.
Congress has the power to make laws that outlast administrations and require the will of the people (rather than an individual) to change. Bills in the 119th Congress have been proposed to strengthen and solidify the withdrawal from the WHO. Most of them were filed in the previous Congress and refiled as soon as the 119th session opened.
Untangling our health policy from the WHO and what it stands for is not as simple as an executive order.
Aftermath of first WHO withdrawal
One way to interpret Trump's flippant attitude toward withdrawal or participation is an acknowledgement that the WHO is just one of many ships in the fleet of the global health security architecture. In some ways, it really doesn't matter if the U.S. is a party to the WHO if billions of taxpayer dollars are flowing to the global health state anyway, and with even less accountability and transparency. The WHO was just one sinking ship, but the fleet is still there.
In case of any doubt, we can look at the executive order. The president instructed federal officials to quickly find another way to "assume necessary activities" that were being channeled through the WHO and instead use other organizations or partners.
President Trump doesn't make empty statements and that order is in line with the shift of funding from the WHO to Gates and his various foundations in the early days of the declared pandemic in 2020 and 2021. After declaring a withdrawal from the WHO, the first Trump administration heavily invested in the Gates Foundation, GAVI, and CEPI. But these organizations are among the world's top funders of the WHO, second and third after the U.S., so our tax dollars were getting there anyway.2 According to the Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) we are one of the largest funders of GAVI, especially during COVID.3
.jpg)
It's hopeful, though, that Trump recently announced in another executive order on February 4, 2025, that three U.N. organizations, some of which overlap with health, deserve scrutiny and caution: UNESCO, UNRWA, and UNHRC.4 Stand for Health Freedom reported on the WHO's alliance with UNESCO to promote global goals for "health promoting schools," complete with changing curriculum, normalizing a digital surveillance state, and increasing school-based health services away from parents.
The order doesn't halt funding to UNESCO, however, and isn't about sovereignty and privacy over health decisions or digital surveillance of our children. We have more work to do to educate this administration here, but conducting an investigation is a good step in the right direction. You can bet we'll be educating and watching for a report in the coming months. Interestingly, former senator and now Secretary of State Marco Rubio praised Trump's decision to leave UNESCO in 2017,5 which could indicate another break coming.
What we're watching for, and work to be done
We're happy that Trump kept a campaign promise and withdrew from the WHO on Day 1, but there's more work to be done and questions that need answers.
- The WHO's regional office for the Americas, PAHO, is in Washington, D.C. What is the fate of that office if the U.S. has withdrawn?
- In January 2025, Bill Gates had dinner with President Trump at Mar-a-Lago, and we know global health was on the table. Bill Gates boasted that he piqued Trump's interest in the promise of eradicating polio while Trump was in office.6 This is a major initiative of the WHO. Would Trump or Congress again choose to send taxpayer dollars to Gates-powered organizations who would in turn give that money to the WHO?
- The WHO is a sinking ship, but it wasn't the only global health ship in the fleet. America is entangled with other treaties and agreements such as the Pact for the Future, and the U.N. High Level Political Declaration on Pandemic Prevention, Preparedness, and Response. We need to remain vigilant so that the threat to sovereignty posed by the WHO does not trickle through other instruments.
- We need to rid our federal and state laws and public health policies of the concept of "One Health," which is an academic and political way to usher in the global health surveillance agenda, independent of the WHO.
- Americans need a law passed by Congress keeping us out of the WHO to ensure the decision isn't held by one person alone.
Conclusion
As you can see, there have been promising first steps, but a lot of work remains to be done to prevent tyranny from a fear-based global health power grab. With health freedom and the MAHA movement front and center in national conversations, we now have fertile ground to affect positive change for more limited government and sovereignty as a constitutional republic.
Continue to follow Stand for Health Freedom as we keep an eye on the flurry of happenings in the states, the federal government, and in global circles. We are always mindful of strategic action for the most powerful effect and voice.
References
2. https://open.who.int/2024-25/contributors/contributor
3. https://www.kff.org/global-health-policy/fact-sheet/the-u-s-government-gavi-the-vaccine-alliance/
6. https://people.com/bill-gates-was-impressed-donald-trump-8776851
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario