home.social

#timemagazine — Public Fediverse posts

Live and recent posts from across the Fediverse tagged #timemagazine, aggregated by home.social.

  1. What the U.S.’ Withdrawal from the WHO Means for Public Health – TIME

    Jan 22, 2026 11:08 AM PT

    The U.S. Has Pulled Out of the WHO. Here’s What That Means for Public Health

    by Alice Park, Senior Correspondent

    Getty Images

    The U.S. was one of the first countries to join the World Health Organization (WHO) when it was created in 1948 as part of the United Nations. But on Jan. 22, 2026, it officially withdrew from the global health group.

    The U.S. has historically been the largest funder to the WHO, through both its assessed and voluntary contributions, so the departure is poised to disrupt both global and domestic health. “This is one of the most penny-wise and billion-dollar-foolish moves,” says Michael Osterholm, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota.

    Here’s what to know.

    Is the U.S. officially out of the WHO?

    The WHO’s charter does not contain a clause allowing member states to withdraw. But in agreeing to join decades ago, the U.S. Congress included an option to leave the organization as long as the U.S. gave a year’s notice and met its financial obligations by paying its dues in full.

    The first condition appears to have been met: A year ago, President Donald Trump gave notice that the U.S. would withdraw. But the U.S. has not paid its outstanding dues—including from the final year of the Biden Administration.

    The WHO’s principal legal officer Steven Solomon said during a press briefing on Jan. 13 that the matter will be discussed by the organization’s executive board, which is scheduled to meet in February, and those talks could extend to the General Assembly that meets in May. “We look forward to member states discussing this,” he said. “Because these questions of withdrawal—questions of the conditions, the promise, and agreement reached between the U.S. and World Health Assembly [of the WHO]—these are issues reserved for member states, and not issues WHO staff can decide.”

    Will the U.S. be prevented from working with the WHO?

    Dr. Tedros Ghebreysus, WHO Director-General, has said he is open to accepting the U.S. back as a member and hopes it will reconsider the decision to withdraw.

    “WHO has signaled—very intentionally, I think—that they want to continue to work with the U.S.,” says Dr. Judd Walson, chair of international health at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. “The flag of the United States continues to fly outside the WHO building [in Geneva], and that’s not a mistake. It’s a very intentional signal that they welcome us to re-engage.”

    Read More: Bill Gates: I’m Still Optimistic About Global Health

    Osterholm says researchers will likely continue to stay in touch with their global-health colleagues, but on an individual level that lacks the coordination and clout of federal-level participation. The yearly update of the flu vaccine is a good example. “The flu world has always been very close globally,” he says. “I am quite convinced that there will be unofficial information-sharing among this group. The question is, at what point does that information have to be official in order for companies to take action deciding which vaccine strains they are going to use?”

    Walson sits on a few WHO committees and says he asked his colleagues there whether the U.S. decision changed his ability to participate. “They said absolutely not—that as a U.S. citizen, I still have the capacity to participate in the workings of the WHO. And there are scientists and technical experts engaging to continue to maintain our access [to the WHO] at the individual level. Clearly we have lost the coordination of all of these activities, but we will still have some engagement.”

    Solomon echoed that intention. “While there is an open question when and how withdrawal happens, there is not an open question about what the constitution says about WHO’s overall mission. The constitution sets out the objective for the organization, of health for all people, wherever they live and without discrimination.”

    What will change now that the U.S. is no longer a member of the WHO?

    One of the first things that could change for U.S. scientists is their access to databases that are important for monitoring infectious diseases like influenza, as well as emerging threats that could affect the health of Americans, such as COVID. While many of these data sources are public, and U.S. scientists will continue to access them, they might not have as much insight into how the raw data were collected and processed, says Walson. That could be important for understanding how to interpret the information and for getting a head start on potentially dangerous outbreaks of new infectious diseases. 

    Continue/Read Original Article Here: What the U.S.’ Withdrawal from the WHO Means for Public Health | TIME

    Tags: America, Education, Health, History, Libraries, Opinion, Pubic Health, Resistance, Science, Time, Time Magazine, Trump, Trump Administration, United States, WHO, Withdrawal, Withdraws, World Health, World Health Organization, YouTube
    #America #Education #Health #History #Libraries #Opinion #PubicHealth #Resistance #Science #Time #TimeMagazine #Trump #TrumpAdministration #UnitedStates #WHO #Withdrawal #Withdraws #WorldHealth #WorldHealthOrganization #YouTube
  2. 3 Pillars of Trump’s Power—Including Tariffs—Head to Supreme Court | TIME

    President Donald Trump attends a cabinet meeting at the White House on August 26, 2025 in Washington, DC. Trump’s authority on tariffs, deportations and sending the military into U.S. cities are at stake in major court cases. Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images)

    Sep 10, 2025, 4:00 AM PT

    3 Pillars of Trump’s Power Are Tested, as Pivotal Cases Head to Supreme Court

    By Brian Bennett, Bennett is the senior White House correspondent at TIME.

    The Brief September 10, 2025

    The Brief September 10, 2025

    Editor’s Note: Audio on the linked article/site. Not available to embed.

    In early September, President Donald Trump’s White House sent out a press release laying out ways Trump has been “delivering historic results.” It outed $158 billion in tariff revenues coming into the U.S. since Trump took office. It said that Trump’s border crackdown has led to a 97% drop in northward migration from Central America and that his use of the military for law enforcement in Washington DC is a “model” for other cities.

    It was just the latest example of the Administration highlighting how Trump is following through on his campaign promises to aggressively deploy tariffs, ramp up deportations, and send the National Guard into U.S. cities. But a recent drumbeat of court rulings have called those three central actions of Trump’s presidency into question. Lower courts are repeatedly finding that Trump has exceeded his powers as President under the Constitution. In just the last two weeks, federal courts ruled that most of his tariffs are illegal, that he violated a law prohibiting the use of soldiers for law enforcement inside the U.S., and that many of his most high-profile deportations were based on a faulty reading of law.

    The White House is challenging all of those decisions, setting the stage for the Supreme Court to ultimately determine if if Trump may have to rein in his efforts in those areas The high court, where conservatives hold a 6-3 majority thanks to the three justices Trump hand-picked during his first term, has so far taken an expansive view of Trump’s ability to act.

    Here are three major actions Trump has taken that are in jeopardy and appear destined for the Supreme Court:

    Issuing Tariffs

    A federal court ruled in late August that most of Trump’s tariffs are illegal because they were imposed without Congressional approval. But that lower court held off on enacting its order to give the Trump Administration time to appeal to the Supreme Court. On Tuesday, the high court announced it was expediting the tariff case, demanding briefs from all sides from the government and the plaintiffs by Sept. 19 in order to hear in-person arguments in early November.

    The case was brought by a group of small businesses that said the tariffs Trump imposed so far “amount to an average tax increase of $1,200-$2,800 per American household.” The business owners argued that issuing those tariffs were beyond the President’s powers under the Constitution. Article I of the Constitution empowered Congress to “lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises” and demands that bills for raising revenue “shall originate in the House of Representatives.” (CONTINUED)

    Editor’s Note: Read the rest of the story, at the below link.

    Continue/Read Original Article Here: 3 Pillars of Trump’s Power—Including Tariffs—Head to Supreme Court | TIME

    #2025 #America #DemocraticStates #DonaldTrump #Education #Health #History #Libraries #Library #LibraryOfCongress #NationalGuard #Opinion #Pillars #Politics #Resistance #Science #SpeedingDeportations #Tariffs #Three #Time #TimeMagazine #Trump #TrumpAdministration #TrumpSPower #USCities #UnitedStates

  3. 🚀🌟 A 13-year-old Scottish girl’s groundbreaking invention lands her on the cover of Time’s first "Girls of the Year" edition! Young brilliance shaping the future!

    @goodnews

    #GoodNews #YoungInnovator #GirlsInSTEM #TimeMagazine #FutureStars
    abcnews.go.com/Technology/vide