#withdraws — Public Fediverse posts

Trump administration withdraws U.S. from global open government initiative – FedScoop

• Federal

Trump administration withdraws U.S. from global open government initiative

The General Services Administration cited the organization’s support for “LGBTQ+ advocacy, feminism, and climate alarmism” among its reasons the nation dropped its membership.

By Madison Alder, January 30, 2026

Listen to this article, 3:59

The U.S. government has backed out of an organization it helped found that’s aimed at improving how governments can better serve their citizens.

The Open Government Partnership announced Wednesday that the U.S. had formally withdrawn its membership, adding to a growing list of organizations the administration has departed. 

Despite the U.S. being one of the founding nations of the organization in 2011, the General Services Administration’s head, Edward Forst, wrote to the group’s leadership this month to notify them of the decision. 

Per a copy of that letter published by OGP, Forst said the country’s participation in the organization “has become at best ineffective and at worst detrimental to advancing” principles outlined in the nation’s founding documents, though he didn’t cite specific documents.

Forst implied that the body “seeks to erode U.S. national sovereignty” and went on to blame its “embrace of divisive ideological agendas” as a reason the nation dropped its membership. 

“Racial identity politics, anti-police bias, LGBTQ+ advocacy, feminism, and climate alarmism have increasingly dominated OGP’s policy agenda,” Forst wrote. “These divisive agendas, driven by extreme ideological cliques, have destroyed the ability of OGP to credibly operate as a voice for transparency.”

That rhetoric echoes the Trump administration’s controversial efforts to remove diversity, equity, and inclusion, or DEI, from the federal government — whether through the termination of grants, positions, organizations, or data points. The withdrawal also comes after the organization reported that the Trump administration had weakened the U.S. government’s existing progress toward open government goals. 

In a December report, OGP pointed to the Trump administration’s repeal and replacement of executive orders “related to equity, data transparency, and law enforcement accountability” and disbanding a federal advisory committee on open government as examples of weakened progress.

The U.S. withdrawal was met with disappointment and criticism from the organization’s leadership as well as civil society leaders, though none expressed surprise. 

“Anyone who has followed developments over the last year will not be surprised by this decision of the US government,” Aidan Eyakuze, OGP’s CEO, said in a statement included in the release. 

Eyakuze commended efforts by government leaders and civil society to advance accountability goals and expressed hope the U.S. would return to the organization one day. 

Daniel Schuman, executive director of the nonprofit American Governance Institute who previously led the now-disbanded Open Government Federal Advisory Committee, said the administration’s decision is part of “a broader pattern of opacity.”

“The Trump administration is not only the least transparent government in American history; its policies are antithetical to democracy, of which transparency is an essential element,” Schuman said in a written statement. 

Continue/Read Original Article Here: Trump administration withdraws U.S. from global open government initiative | FedScoop

Trump administration withdraws U.S. from global open government initiative – FedScoop

• Federal

Trump administration withdraws U.S. from global open government initiative

The General Services Administration cited the organization’s support for “LGBTQ+ advocacy, feminism, and climate alarmism” among its reasons the nation dropped its membership.

By Madison Alder, January 30, 2026

Listen to this article, 3:59

The U.S. government has backed out of an organization it helped found that’s aimed at improving how governments can better serve their citizens.

The Open Government Partnership announced Wednesday that the U.S. had formally withdrawn its membership, adding to a growing list of organizations the administration has departed. 

Despite the U.S. being one of the founding nations of the organization in 2011, the General Services Administration’s head, Edward Forst, wrote to the group’s leadership this month to notify them of the decision. 

Per a copy of that letter published by OGP, Forst said the country’s participation in the organization “has become at best ineffective and at worst detrimental to advancing” principles outlined in the nation’s founding documents, though he didn’t cite specific documents.

Forst implied that the body “seeks to erode U.S. national sovereignty” and went on to blame its “embrace of divisive ideological agendas” as a reason the nation dropped its membership. 

“Racial identity politics, anti-police bias, LGBTQ+ advocacy, feminism, and climate alarmism have increasingly dominated OGP’s policy agenda,” Forst wrote. “These divisive agendas, driven by extreme ideological cliques, have destroyed the ability of OGP to credibly operate as a voice for transparency.”

That rhetoric echoes the Trump administration’s controversial efforts to remove diversity, equity, and inclusion, or DEI, from the federal government — whether through the termination of grants, positions, organizations, or data points. The withdrawal also comes after the organization reported that the Trump administration had weakened the U.S. government’s existing progress toward open government goals. 

In a December report, OGP pointed to the Trump administration’s repeal and replacement of executive orders “related to equity, data transparency, and law enforcement accountability” and disbanding a federal advisory committee on open government as examples of weakened progress.

The U.S. withdrawal was met with disappointment and criticism from the organization’s leadership as well as civil society leaders, though none expressed surprise. 

“Anyone who has followed developments over the last year will not be surprised by this decision of the US government,” Aidan Eyakuze, OGP’s CEO, said in a statement included in the release. 

Eyakuze commended efforts by government leaders and civil society to advance accountability goals and expressed hope the U.S. would return to the organization one day. 

Daniel Schuman, executive director of the nonprofit American Governance Institute who previously led the now-disbanded Open Government Federal Advisory Committee, said the administration’s decision is part of “a broader pattern of opacity.”

“The Trump administration is not only the least transparent government in American history; its policies are antithetical to democracy, of which transparency is an essential element,” Schuman said in a written statement. 

Continue/Read Original Article Here: Trump administration withdraws U.S. from global open government initiative | FedScoop

Trump administration withdraws U.S. from global open government initiative – FedScoop

• Federal

Trump administration withdraws U.S. from global open government initiative

The General Services Administration cited the organization’s support for “LGBTQ+ advocacy, feminism, and climate alarmism” among its reasons the nation dropped its membership.

By Madison Alder, January 30, 2026

Listen to this article, 3:59

The U.S. government has backed out of an organization it helped found that’s aimed at improving how governments can better serve their citizens.

The Open Government Partnership announced Wednesday that the U.S. had formally withdrawn its membership, adding to a growing list of organizations the administration has departed. 

Despite the U.S. being one of the founding nations of the organization in 2011, the General Services Administration’s head, Edward Forst, wrote to the group’s leadership this month to notify them of the decision. 

Per a copy of that letter published by OGP, Forst said the country’s participation in the organization “has become at best ineffective and at worst detrimental to advancing” principles outlined in the nation’s founding documents, though he didn’t cite specific documents.

Forst implied that the body “seeks to erode U.S. national sovereignty” and went on to blame its “embrace of divisive ideological agendas” as a reason the nation dropped its membership. 

“Racial identity politics, anti-police bias, LGBTQ+ advocacy, feminism, and climate alarmism have increasingly dominated OGP’s policy agenda,” Forst wrote. “These divisive agendas, driven by extreme ideological cliques, have destroyed the ability of OGP to credibly operate as a voice for transparency.”

That rhetoric echoes the Trump administration’s controversial efforts to remove diversity, equity, and inclusion, or DEI, from the federal government — whether through the termination of grants, positions, organizations, or data points. The withdrawal also comes after the organization reported that the Trump administration had weakened the U.S. government’s existing progress toward open government goals. 

In a December report, OGP pointed to the Trump administration’s repeal and replacement of executive orders “related to equity, data transparency, and law enforcement accountability” and disbanding a federal advisory committee on open government as examples of weakened progress.

The U.S. withdrawal was met with disappointment and criticism from the organization’s leadership as well as civil society leaders, though none expressed surprise. 

“Anyone who has followed developments over the last year will not be surprised by this decision of the US government,” Aidan Eyakuze, OGP’s CEO, said in a statement included in the release. 

Eyakuze commended efforts by government leaders and civil society to advance accountability goals and expressed hope the U.S. would return to the organization one day. 

Daniel Schuman, executive director of the nonprofit American Governance Institute who previously led the now-disbanded Open Government Federal Advisory Committee, said the administration’s decision is part of “a broader pattern of opacity.”

“The Trump administration is not only the least transparent government in American history; its policies are antithetical to democracy, of which transparency is an essential element,” Schuman said in a written statement. 

Continue/Read Original Article Here: Trump administration withdraws U.S. from global open government initiative | FedScoop

Trump administration withdraws U.S. from global open government initiative – FedScoop

• Federal

Trump administration withdraws U.S. from global open government initiative

The General Services Administration cited the organization’s support for “LGBTQ+ advocacy, feminism, and climate alarmism” among its reasons the nation dropped its membership.

By Madison Alder, January 30, 2026

Listen to this article, 3:59

The U.S. government has backed out of an organization it helped found that’s aimed at improving how governments can better serve their citizens.

The Open Government Partnership announced Wednesday that the U.S. had formally withdrawn its membership, adding to a growing list of organizations the administration has departed. 

Despite the U.S. being one of the founding nations of the organization in 2011, the General Services Administration’s head, Edward Forst, wrote to the group’s leadership this month to notify them of the decision. 

Per a copy of that letter published by OGP, Forst said the country’s participation in the organization “has become at best ineffective and at worst detrimental to advancing” principles outlined in the nation’s founding documents, though he didn’t cite specific documents.

Forst implied that the body “seeks to erode U.S. national sovereignty” and went on to blame its “embrace of divisive ideological agendas” as a reason the nation dropped its membership. 

“Racial identity politics, anti-police bias, LGBTQ+ advocacy, feminism, and climate alarmism have increasingly dominated OGP’s policy agenda,” Forst wrote. “These divisive agendas, driven by extreme ideological cliques, have destroyed the ability of OGP to credibly operate as a voice for transparency.”

That rhetoric echoes the Trump administration’s controversial efforts to remove diversity, equity, and inclusion, or DEI, from the federal government — whether through the termination of grants, positions, organizations, or data points. The withdrawal also comes after the organization reported that the Trump administration had weakened the U.S. government’s existing progress toward open government goals. 

In a December report, OGP pointed to the Trump administration’s repeal and replacement of executive orders “related to equity, data transparency, and law enforcement accountability” and disbanding a federal advisory committee on open government as examples of weakened progress.

The U.S. withdrawal was met with disappointment and criticism from the organization’s leadership as well as civil society leaders, though none expressed surprise. 

“Anyone who has followed developments over the last year will not be surprised by this decision of the US government,” Aidan Eyakuze, OGP’s CEO, said in a statement included in the release. 

Eyakuze commended efforts by government leaders and civil society to advance accountability goals and expressed hope the U.S. would return to the organization one day. 

Daniel Schuman, executive director of the nonprofit American Governance Institute who previously led the now-disbanded Open Government Federal Advisory Committee, said the administration’s decision is part of “a broader pattern of opacity.”

“The Trump administration is not only the least transparent government in American history; its policies are antithetical to democracy, of which transparency is an essential element,” Schuman said in a written statement. 

Continue/Read Original Article Here: Trump administration withdraws U.S. from global open government initiative | FedScoop

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

• Health
• Public Health

by Alice Park, Senior Correspondent

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

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

• Health
• Public Health

by Alice Park, Senior Correspondent

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

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

• Health
• Public Health

by Alice Park, Senior Correspondent

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

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

• Health
• Public Health

by Alice Park, Senior Correspondent

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

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

• Health
• Public Health

by Alice Park, Senior Correspondent

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

Wednesday, December 24, 2025

https://activitypub.writeworks.uk/2025/12/wednesday-december-24-2025/

Wednesday, December 24, 2025

https://activitypub.writeworks.uk/2025/12/wednesday-december-24-2025/

Wednesday, December 24, 2025

https://activitypub.writeworks.uk/2025/12/wednesday-december-24-2025/

Wednesday, December 24, 2025

https://activitypub.writeworks.uk/2025/12/wednesday-december-24-2025/

Wednesday, December 24, 2025

https://activitypub.writeworks.uk/2025/12/wednesday-december-24-2025/

https://www.alojapan.com/1414116/asb-classic-naomi-osaka-withdraws-elina-svitolina-emma-navarro-confirmed/ ASB Classic: Naomi Osaka withdraws; Elina Svitolina, Emma Navarro confirmed #2026 #asb #classic  #confirmed #elina #emma #naomi #Navarro #news #Osaka #OsakaNews #Return #runnerup #svitolina #this #tournament #will #withdraws #year's #大阪 #大阪府 “We are absolutely thrilled that both Elina and Emma indicated that they want to compete in Auckland,” ASB Classic tournament director Nicolas Lamperin said. “I was pleasantly surprised when both spoke to

https://www.alojapan.com/1414116/asb-classic-naomi-osaka-withdraws-elina-svitolina-emma-navarro-confirmed/ ASB Classic: Naomi Osaka withdraws; Elina Svitolina, Emma Navarro confirmed #2026 #asb #classic  #confirmed #elina #emma #naomi #Navarro #news #Osaka #OsakaNews #Return #runnerup #svitolina #this #tournament #will #withdraws #year's #大阪 #大阪府 “We are absolutely thrilled that both Elina and Emma indicated that they want to compete in Auckland,” ASB Classic tournament director Nicolas Lamperin said. “I was pleasantly surprised when both spoke to

Russia Withdraws Support, Leaving Africa in the Lurch for Aid #WestAfrica #Africa #aid #leaving #Lurch #Russia #support #withdraws 
https://tinyurl.com/2xujykj6

North Western State of Somalia Withdraws from Talks with Somali Government, Labels Prime Minister’s Las Anod Trip as a 'Calculated Provocation' #Somalia #Anod #Calculated #government #Labels #LAs #ministers #north #Prime #provocation #Somali #Somalia #state #talks #trip #western #withdraws 
https://tinyurl.com/29gbof5f

North Western State of Somalia Withdraws from Talks with Somali Government, Labels Prime Minister’s Las Anod Trip as a 'Calculated Provocation' #Somalia #Anod #Calculated #government #Labels #LAs #ministers #north #Prime #provocation #Somali #Somalia #state #talks #trip #western #withdraws 
https://tinyurl.com/29gbof5f

North Western State of Somalia Withdraws from Talks with Somali Government, Labels Prime Minister’s Las Anod Trip as a 'Calculated Provocation' #Somalia #Anod #Calculated #government #Labels #LAs #ministers #north #Prime #provocation #Somali #Somalia #state #talks #trip #western #withdraws 
https://tinyurl.com/29gbof5f

Trump lawyer Joe Tacopina withdraws from ex-president’s cases

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4409344-trump-lawyer-joe-tacopina-withdraws-from-ex-presidents-cases/

#TheHill #TrumpLawyer #JoeTacopina #Withdraws #ExPresidentCases #CourtBattles #Politics #News