Across Talk is a new monthly video series from Renew America Together. In this episode, Lincoln Zaleski, a disinformation specialist at Renew America Together, chats with Jaclyn O'Day, Executive Director of the Problem Solvers Caucus in the U.S. House of Representatives. Beginning in 2017, the Problem Solvers Caucus became an independent member-driven group in Congress, comprised of representatives equally divided between Democrats and Republicans committed to finding common ground on many key issues.
Site Navigation
Search
Latest Stories
Start your day right!
Get latest updates and insights delivered to your inbox.
Top Stories
Latest news
Read More
WHO Withdrawal is Not Going to Make America Healthy Again
Jan 31, 2025
One of the first executive orders signed by President Trump on the evening of his inauguration was to immediately withdraw the U.S. from the World Health Organization (WHO), the United Nations agency tasked with coordinating a wide range of health activities around the world. This did not come as a surprise. President Trump tried to pull this off in 2020 amidst the COVID-19 pandemic.
Upset at how WHO handled the pandemic, President Trump accused it of succumbing to the political influence of its member states, more specifically to China. However, the structure of the WHO, which is made up of 197 member states, prevents it from enforcing compliance or taking any decisive action without broad consensus. Despite its flaws, the WHO is the backbone of global health coordination. When President Joe Biden came into office, he reversed the decision and re-engaged the US with the WHO.
WHO’s mission is to promote health, keep the world safe, and serve the most vulnerable. Besides taking the lead in coordinating the world’s response to health emergencies, WHO works with member states and partners to eradicate polio, deliver essential health services, set international guidelines for medicine and vaccines, and promote universal health coverage. Its mandate is broad and ambitious.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
Like all large bureaucratic institutions, the WHO could benefit from reform and improved management practices. But to unilaterally pull out of the largest coordinating body on everything global health, is like throwing the baby out with the water. It is a draconian move that undermines everyone’s health in a globalized world where people, goods, and services move around and can become vehicles for diseases.
Stephanie Psaki, a former U.S. coordinator for global health security at the National Security Council, said in a January 28 op-ed on STAT that WHO withdrawal “will sever ties with critical partners, cut our resources to stop outbreaks before they reach our shores, diminish our access to vital early warning data, slash the pipeline of innovative vaccines and treatments that could be used in an emergency, and hamper the ability of federal agencies to act quickly to warn Americans about emerging threats.”
“Unfairly onerous payments from the United States” are cited in President Trump’s executive order to withdraw from WHO. Though the U.S. is the single biggest donor to this UN agency, giving $1.284 billion in the 2022 and 2023 fiscal years, it is critical to understand that mandatory contributions are assessed on a country’s domestic product and population size and only represent 20% of WHO’s total budget.
The rest of WHO’s budget comes from voluntary contributions earmarked for specific health programs. In fact, mandatory contributions from the US to the WHO are not much higher than those from China, which are $218 million versus $115 million. Funds for the WHO represent 4% of America’s budget for global health. For a detailed breakdown of the U.S. global health budget, consult this resource.
Reforming WHO is a process that is already in progress, said Elisha Dunn-Georgiou, President and CEO of the Global Health Council, in an email to the Fulcrum. “In recent years, under the direction of the U.S. and other member states, the WHO has made several changes to improve financial management and operational performance,” she explains. Withdrawing from the WHO also means having less influence in creating a more efficient agency. This resource from the BetterWorld Campaign, shared by Dunn-Georgiou, provides some insight into WHO reforms, which include how member fees are calculated.
Katelyn Jetelina, an adjunct professor at the Yale School of Public Health and the publisher of Your Local Epidemiologist, a newsletter on Substack, says that self-interest is one reason all Americans should care about the WHO withdrawal executive order. “Infectious diseases don’t respect borders. Covid-19, flu, Ebola—you name it. Even if the U.S. is well-equipped to handle its own health challenges, our safety depends on the rest of the world being equipped, too.”
This executive order comes at a time when the country is facing one of the largest recorded tuberculosis outbreaks in U.S. history in the state of Kansas and an Avian influenza outbreak in poultry and dairy farms that has already caused one human death. To make matters worse, a gagorder was imposed on the U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to stop communicating with the WHO immediately. This hinders data exchange on current disease outbreaks to protect all Americans.
Another reason Americans should care about WHO withdrawal, Jetelina says, includes geopolitical implications and the likelihood that others, especially China, will step in to fill the public health leadership vacuum left by the United States.
Technically, countries cannot withdraw from the WHO without giving a year’s official notice. However, a story published in KFF Health News reports that in his order, President Trump cites the termination notice he gave to WHO back in 2020. If Congress or health experts push back, his administration can argue that more than a year has passed. This is a calculated move rooted in Project 2025 priorities.
A week after the WHO executive order, a State Department memo issued a 90-day Stop Work Order on all U.S. foreign assistance—less than 1% of the federal budget. For comparison, defense spending accounted for 13.3% in 2023. Halting these life-saving health programs in the world's poorest nations will have devastating consequences.
Former USAID global health administrator Atul Gawande warned on X that the order disrupts critical programs, including HIV drug distribution for 20 million people, polio eradication, and containment of deadly outbreaks like Marburg in Tanzania and an mpox variant killing children in West Africa. "Make no mistake—these essential, lifesaving activities are being halted right now," he stressed. "Consequences aren’t in some distant future. They are immediate."
Atul Gawande's social media post
Being part of the WHO is a strategic U.S. investment, a “soft diplomacy” tool, health experts say. “The investments the U.S. government makes in global health results in enormous returns, providing both economic and national security rewards as well as improving our standing throughout the world,” said Dunn-Georgiou. “They result in job creation in, among other sectors, biotechnology, medical devices, and pharmaceuticals. It also bolsters local economies through new contracts.”
On Tuesday, January 28, a State Department memo signed by Marco Rubio temporarily lifted the Stop Work Order for select life-saving activities overseas, including core life-saving medicines, medical services, food, and shelter. However, withdrawal from the WHO remains in place and blocks data exchange and disease surveillance with this global institution, potentially resulting in dire consequences for Americans.
Beatrice Spadacini is a freelance journalist for the Fulcrum. Spadacini writes about social justice and public health.
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended
Independents as peacemakers
Jan 26, 2025
In the years ahead, independents, as candidates and as citizens, should emerge as peacemakers. Even with a new administration in Washington, independents must work on a long-term strategy for themselves and for the country.
The peacemaker model stands in stark contrast to what might be called the marriage counselor model. Independent voters, on the marriage counselor model, could elect independent candidates for office or convince elected politicians to become independents in order to secure the leverage needed to force the parties to compromise with each other. On this model, independents, say six in the Senate, would be like marriage counselors because their chief function would be to put pressure on both parties to make deals, especially when it comes to major policy bills that require 60 votes in the Senate.
This pressure could even apply in the House, where the Republican Freedom Caucus may not support Speaker Johnson and mainstream Republicans on any number of the 13 appropriations bills that constitute the annual budget and where the reconciliation process enables the majority party to pass legislation with a mere majority. Still, the marriage counselor model envisions independents as using their leverage to achieve bipartisanship on Capitol Hill and with the White House.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
The peacemaker model is more ambitious. It envisions independents using leverage (via their votes), but it also involves independents inserting their own concepts, values, and feelings into the legislative process. Their goal is to be a third force on Capitol Hill and Washington in general because they would seek to forge not just a compromise between the Democrats and the Republicans -- say on climate change, guns, entitlement reform, immigration or childcare and parental leave -- but a synthesis of three distinct points of view.
The marriage counselor model of independents conceives of the independents like therapists who get the married couple to work out their difficulties with new plans, proposals, and attitudes. It is not the role of the therapist to insert his or her or their values into the therapeutic process. The peacemaker model, however, goes further. It absolutely does seek to insert the concepts, values and feelings of the independents into the legislative process. It is a peacemaker model not just in what scholars in Peace Studies call "negative peace," namely peace in the negative sense of avoiding conflict and even violence between the two major parties.
It is a peacemaker model in the positive sense of forging bills that will create new laws that will be satisfactory to all three sides and that represent a unique synthesis of three points of view. A positive peace and not merely a negative peace is, therefore, the goal of a new model in Washington that aims to substitute the goal of tripartisanship for the goal of bipartisanship. Tripartisan deliberations and decisions in Washington and not bipartisan deliberations and decisions represent the ten-year goal for the nation's capital and the country itself.
This process of societal transformation will be the final step of a 250-to-260-year process of closing the gap between the United States and the rest of the free world, where almost every democratic country has three or more political parties that have significant power -- notably in France, Germany, Italy, Japan, South Korea, the UK, and Israel. Australia, in particular, has witnessed the rise of the "Teal Independents" in recent years, providing the United States with a model to generate the rise of the "American Independents."
How precisely independents are to organize and reconcile differences amongst themselves and elect independents is an open question. I favor a view that focuses on a decentralized rather than a centralized approach. Independents need to be elected one at a time in a small number of national races -- or converted in Washington -- to create a critical mass with sufficient leverage.
The Dartmouth economist Charles Wheelan was right in "The Centrist Manifesto" that we needed a "Fulcrum Strategy" to overcome the dysfunction in Washington. But he was too ambitious to propose that a Centrist Third Party could supply the leverage. Power and ultimately positive peace will come if Americans use some of the political and military ingenuity the American Revolutionaries used to take power away from the British Crown.
In our case, the independents do not have to defeat all or even the majority or even huge numbers of Democrats and Republicans. They only need to defeat enough of them in order to have the leverage to create positive peace in Washington and the country overall.
Dave Anderson edited "Leveraging: A Political, Economic and Societal Framework," has taught at five universities and ran for the Democratic nomination for a Maryland congressional seat in 2016.
Keep ReadingShow less
Trump takes first steps to enact his sweeping agenda
Jan 21, 2025
On his first day in office as the 47th President of the United States, Donald Trump began to implement his agenda for reshaping the nation's institutions.
He signed a flurry of executive orders, memorandums, and proclamations.
Here are five notable Trump’s Day 1 actions:
Evening Shot of Border Wall Between El Paso Texas USA and Juárez Chihuahua Texas at Puerto Anapra with US Border Patrol Vehicle in the DistanceGetty Images//Stock Photo
1. Immigration
President Trump issued an executive order regarding birthright citizenship, which restricts federal agencies from issuing certain documents typically available to U.S. citizens.
This order affects children born after the measure takes effect, particularly in cases where the parents are unlawfully present in the U.S., or the mother is temporarily in the U.S. on a visa, and the father is a noncitizen.
Logo of the World Health Organization WHO with the WHO headquarters in the background in Geneva, Switzerland. (Photo by Lian Yi/Xinhua via Getty Images)
2. Withdrawal from WHO
Trump announced the U.S. withdrawal from the World Health Organization (WHO), marking a substantial decision to sever ties with the U.N. public health agency. He has previously criticized the WHO, and the formal withdrawal process had begun during his administration amid the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
Jan. 6 investigation goes primetime Brent Stirton/Getty Images
3. Pardons related to January 6
In a significant move, President Trump pardoned nearly all individuals convicted in connection with the January 6 Capitol attack, which includes about 1,270 people.
He also directed the Justice Department to dismiss approximately 300 pending cases and ordered the release of a smaller group of 14 defendants involved in the most serious sedition cases.
This action was more extensive than many expected, including some of Trump’s own advisors and GOP allies.
Sun, Global warming, Global boiling from the climate crisis and the catastrophic heatwave, Climate change, the sun and burning Heatwave hot sunGetty Images/Stock Photo
4. Paris Agreement Exit
President Donald Trump signed an executive action to withdraw the United States from the Paris Agreement, mirroring his decision during his first term. The Paris Agreement is an international accord to address climate change, with nearly 200 countries committed to limiting global warming to below 2 degrees Celsius and ideally below 1.5 degrees.
Each participating country is responsible for creating its own plan to meet these climate goals.
The speech Joe Biden won’t give Anadolu/Getty Images
5. Biden-era executive orders revoked
Trump revoked several executive actions from the Biden administration, including the decision to remove Cuba's designation as a state sponsor of terrorism, sanctions on Jewish settlers in the West Bank, and measures aimed at mitigating risks associated with artificial intelligence.
These reversals were part of a larger effort to overturn Biden-era policies and were signed at Capitol One Arena shortly after Trump's inauguration.
Trump reportedly intended to sign as many as 200 executive orders on the first day of his second term. By comparison, he signed one order on Inauguration Day 2017.
Hugo Balta is the executive editor of the Fulcrum, and the publisher of the Latino News Network.
Keep ReadingShow less
As Trump policy changes loom, nearly half of farmworkers lack legal status
Jan 19, 2025
The nation’s agriculture sector, which relies heavily on undocumented workers, could face a significant challenge when President-elect Donald Trump takes office this month amid promises to enact stricter immigration policies.
The percentage of undocumented farmworkers — those without legal status — dropped from 54% in 2020 to 42% in 2022, according to the USDA and the U.S. Department of Labor.
Trump said his mass deportation of undocumented immigrants would start with the “criminals,” but that “you have no choice” but to eventually deport everyone in the country illegally, according to a December interview with NBC’s “Meet the Press.”
Mary Jo Dudley, director of the Cornell Farmworker Program, emphasized the potential consequences of such policies, telling Investigate Midwest, “If we lost half of the farmworker population in a short period of time, the agriculture sector would likely collapse.”
“There are no available skilled workers to replace the current workforce should this policy be put into place,” she said.
As Trump policy changes loom, nearly half of farmworkers lack legal statuswas first published on Investigate Midwest, and was republised with permission.
Mónica Cordero is a Report for America corps member and part of the Mississippi River Basin Ag & Water Desk team. Her expertise includes data analysis with Python and SQL, and reporting under the Freedom of Information Act.
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More