To celebrate the holiday season with our readers, The Fulcrum would like to share John Lennon’s classic song, Happy Xmas (War is Over). As we reflect on 2022 and look ahead to the promise of a new year, we hope you find the joy and magic of the season with your family, friends and colleagues.
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
5 Things Americans Agree on at The Start of Trump's Second Term
Jan 31, 2025
More In Common, a nonprofit dedicated to finding ways to bridge political divisions in the US, released a new report that spotlights key areas of agreement across the political spectrum in the early days of the Trump administration.
The report, released last week, reveals a shared consensus on wildfire relief, respect for our allies, a commitment to the constitution, and a desire for unity even though each side is skeptical of the other.
How President Trump and US lawmakers on both sides of the political aisle govern will highlight which voters they are listening to -- if they are listening at all.
US Voters Want Leaders That Follow the Constitution
For example, 74% of Americans, including 73% of Republicans and 71% of independents, believe President Trump should always follow the US Constitution, even if it means he can't get some things done.
One respondent that identified as a Trump voter in 2024 said “He should follow the Constitution and not break laws to do what he wants."
An interesting data point, however, is that Gen Z men stood apart from other survey groups. Forty-two percent (42%) said there are some instances in which Trump would be justified in ignoring the Constitution.
There are also more younger voters in Gen Y and Gen Z who at least somewhat prefer a political leader who is willing to bend the rules, though not a majority (36% of Millennials and 35% of Gen Zers).
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
Most Americans Want to See Federal Aid for California Wildfire Relief
When it comes to federal aid for natural disasters, whether it is a tornado or hurricane or wildfire, Americans have historically come together in favor of helping victims and people in need.
The California wildfires are no different -- though partisan politics has become a variable (including how people expect others to respond).More In Common found 78% of Americans at least somewhat support the US government providing assistance for relief efforts. This includes 90% of Democrats, 72% of Republicans, and 76% of independents.
Overall support among Republicans was higher than independents and Democrats expected, highlighting how the narratives over partisan divisions have caused people to see the worst in others.
For example, Republican support for relief was at 72%, but independents expected that support to be at 48% and Democrats expected it to be at 40%.
"Divided" Is the Most Common Description for America Today
Americans agree partisan divisions in the US are a problem. In fact, "divided" was the most common word used to describe the nation across the political spectrum in the survey, including 61% of independents.
The second most common description was "chaotic."
However, Americans were more likely to say the most desired quality for the US was "united" at nearly half of all respondents, followed by "honest" for independents and Democrats and "hard-working" for Republicans.
“My biggest hope is for our leaders to work together to build America back up; the land of the free for all and home of the brave," said one respondent who identified as a Harris voter in 2024.
Most Americans Want a Foreign Policy That Respects Allies and Defends Democracies
More In Common found that a majority of Americans want a foreign policy approach that respects America's allies, ensures the US is respected, stays out of foreign conflicts, but also protects democracies.
For example, 71% of survey respondents agreed the US should "honor our international alliances." Sixty-five percent (65%) said the US should "make sure the world respects America."
Sixty-three percent (63%) agreed that the US should "stay out of wars and conflicts around the world," but 60% also believe it is the US's responsibility to protect democracies from being invaded by powerful neighbors.
Elon Musk's Involvement in US Politics Gets Mixed Responses
The world's richest man, Elon Musk, has not shied away from the political arena in the US and other countries around the world, most notably supporting Donald Trump's campaign for a second presidential term.
To say there have been moments of controversy is an understatement, and how voters view him and his involvement in the nation's politics tends to come down to their own political leanings.
For example, "smart" was the most common word used to describe Musk for Americans at-large, but especially among moderates (34%), traditional conservatives (45%), and devoted conservatives (57%).
The further right a voter falls, the more favorably they tend to view Musk. The further left a voter falls, the more likely they are to describe him as "dangerous."
However, regardless of how voters view him, Americans at-large are critical of his involvement in American politics. The data found that 28% of total survey respondents thought Musk's role was at least somewhat good.
Twenty-three percent (23%) said there was an equal mix of good and bad, while 37% said somewhat or very bad.
“Elon Musk's track record in revolutionizing industries like electric vehicles and space exploration demonstrates his ability to drive significant change," said one respondent who identified as a traditional conservative and Trump voter.
"However, his involvement in politics should be carefully monitored to ensure that his decisions align with the public interest and do not disproportionately benefit his own ventures.”
Check out more from More in Common's report here.
5 Things Americans Agree on at The Start of Trump's Second Term was first published on Independent Voter News, and was republished with permission.
Shawn Griffiths is the national editor of Independent Voter News, where a version of this story first appeared.
Keep ReadingShow less
Getty Images / Andrii Yalanskyi
We Need to Rethink Polarization Before It Becomes a Self-Fulfilling Prophecy
Jan 29, 2025
It’s time to rethink the notion that we Americans are too polarized to work together and get things done. And it’s time to get clear-eyed about what’s really holding us back and what it will take to help us move forward together.
A few years ago, I engaged cross-sections of Americans from all across the country in 16 in-depth focus groups about how they were feeling about their lives, the country, and our future. These conversations resulted in the report Civic Virus: Why Polarization is a Misdiagnosis.
We released the report at a time when political pundits, researchers, the news media, and others had created a constant drumbeat, saying that Americans are polarized. The initial reception was positive; I appeared on MSNBC’s Meet the Press and had op-eds slated to run in national publications. Then Russia invaded Ukraine and all the attention went to covering the war.
Now, just as Merriam-Webster declared “polarization” their 2024 word of the year, I’m noticing an increasing number of voices, such as pollster Kristin Soltis Anderson for The New York Times,claiming that we aren’t as polarized as we think. Or others, like this data scientist writing for The Daily Beast, stating that the prevailing narrative on polarization gets things wrong.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
I know our “politics” are polarized. Yet, I believe the drumbeat that Americans are polarized has increasingly become an excuse for not engaging with one another and, at times, even a smokescreen to justify actions by those who seek to win at any cost. We must get beyond these traps.
When I engaged Americans in our conversations, I discovered something more profound than polarization. The findings reflected years of larger, underlying societal shifts taking root in society. And they were consistent across the country from rural Kansas to urban New Orleans to suburban Connecticut. The report may be even more explanatory and insightful about what’s going on in the country today than when we originally published it in 2022. Rather than finding that people were polarized, we discovered three overarching points:
- People are separating and segregating themselves from one another due to unrelenting fear and anxiety about what’s happening around and to them.
- Many leaders and media are intentionally manufacturing and stoking divisions for their own self-interest, with social media helping create and amplify these divisions. This is producing a ceaseless surround sound that is engulfing people, subjecting them to an alternate reality that confuses, disorients, and destabilizes them.
- Seeing no way out, people are in an instinctive fight-or-flight response, many breaking up into smaller groups and camps to protect themselves and gain validation, while others retreat from engaging at all.
Notice the term “fight-or-flight” in that last bullet. That isn’t a phrase I chose to describe what people told me during our Civic Virus study; it’s one that Americans from across our conversations repeatedly used themselves.
It’s not that people don’t care about what’s happening in their communities and the country; they care deeply, intensely. As one Nebraska woman shared, “People do want to come together and help each other, but they don’t really know how anymore.” If we’re serious about moving forward today, we must recognize that the divisions in the country are intrinsically about social and psychological conditions—such as fear, anxiety, alienation, and a lack of empathy and belonging—rather than about political polarization. We’re facing a particular human dilemma.
As a result, so many people of good faith have thrown up their hands in frustration and retreated from public life. They’re fearful of raising hard issues, disagreeing with others, and being cut down for what they say. Others have decided that the way forward is to come out fighting and seek to win for their side at any cost.
So what’s the answer to this dilemma? I believe what we’re missing today in American society is a way in which people can come together, figure out what they can agree on amid our real differences, and take action. We must build together; talk alone is not enough. This very act of building generates a sense that we’re in something together, we have a shared humanity, and we each hold a sense of agency in moving forward. As we take shared action, we can demonstrate proof that progress is possible—because belief is based on proof—and that we have the capacity to step forward and get things done together.
This missing piece is what I have come to call the new civic path and I believe it must begin in our local communities, where so much of the significant change in American history has originated. In its absence, we will remain a splintered, divided nation.
How we move forward is not easy. But the choice is basic. Surrender to fight-or-flight. Or come together and get things moving again by taking action on issues that matter to people in their daily lives.
Keep ReadingShow less
Even in victory, Republicans should listen to their opponents
Jan 29, 2025
In the wake of Donald Trump’s election, many people have discussed Democrats’ mistakes—from being “out of touch” and insulting, to focusing too much on Trump, to Biden’s “arrogance” in running again. It’s good for political parties to ask tough questions about how their approach may be driving people away and how they can better serve people.
As Republicans continue to celebrate their victory, will they be brave enough to ask themselves similar questions?
No matter the election results, what hasn’t changed is we’re deeply divided—almost down the middle, in terms of voters. If Republicans fail to reflect on those questions, in a few years they risk finding themselves back where they were in 2020: out of power and mired in resentment. If that happens, will they blame “the establishment” and other external forces for their losses? Or will they consider how their rhetoric and approaches may have alienated Americans and led to setbacks?
Much of the recent toxicity centers around Trump. Many Americans see him as a uniquely irresponsible and dangerous figure—and that perception obviously won’t go away with his return to power. Republicans should think deeply about these concerns—and avoid the urge to denigrate and mock them.
To be clear, this isn’t to argue that one must have or agree with those concerns about Trump. It’s to argue for the importance of understanding and respecting American citizens’ concerns. That is just a good thing to do, regardless of one’s political beliefs or partisanship. When we fail to do those things, we’ll find that we deepen divisions and amplify contempt.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
For example, consider the election distrust fostered by Trump and other Republicans after Trump’s 2020 loss. Many embraced the narrative that the election was “stolen” by Democrats, despite a lack of substantial evidence. Trump’s victory in 2024 undermines those claims.
As Mark Antonio Wright sarcastically put it in National Review: “If Democrats stole it in 2020, why didn’t they steal it this time?” Regardless of your views of Trump or the 2020 election, hopefully you can see that Trump’s recent win highlights the illogical nature of the more dark and paranoid narratives about powerful anti-Trump forces working behind-the-scenes to rig our elections.
Pessimistic thinking happens across the political spectrum, and our emotional divides make such negativity more likely. Regardless of how they view this topic or objections that “Democrats have done it, too,” Republicans should be able to see why so many Americans were deeply concerned by such behaviors. Promoting a narrative where one’s opponents are stealing elections amplifies fears and can fuel violence; at a large enough scale, it can threaten a country’s stability. That’s why concerns that “democracy is being threatened” resonated for many Americans.
Of course, not all responses to such concerns are equally good or helpful. Some efforts to “save democracy” can easily be criticized as partisan and polarizing—like the attempt to remove Trump from the ballot. The partisan nature of some of those efforts can make it easy for Republicans to view all concerns about Trump’s actions as unreasonable—as either having political motivations or being overblown.
That is just how conflict works: our hostility will lead us to filter for and find evidence of why our opponents’ concerns shouldn’t matter — why they’re laughable and worthy of mockery. And in a huge country like ours, finding examples of behaviors that strike us as unreasonable and outlandish will always be easy.
But when political parties focus on mocking opponents’ concerns and fail to take Americans’ grievances seriously, there is a price to pay—just ask the Democrats who are soul searching after their recent losses.
If Republicans want to lower political toxicity, or even ensure long-term success, they must avoid gloating and indulging in “we won, so deal with it” attitudes. Instead, they should take this opportunity to acknowledge the valid concerns of those who view Trump’s behavior and rhetoric as dangerous. Understanding those views doesn’t require agreeing with them—it simply requires empathy and respect.
They should also examine their views about Democrats as a group to determine if they are overly pessimistic. For example, claiming that Democratic stances on immigration are motivated by a desire to win elections is as reductive and insulting as the claim that Republican stances on immigration are driven by racism. All of us must resist the temptation to reach for worst-case assumptions and to “mind-read” our opponents’ hidden intentions: these tendencies only deepen mistrust and hostility.
Winning an election will never guarantee permanent victory—and speaking as if it can will only amplify tensions. Trying to understand and speak to our opponents’ concerns is not weakness; it is how we build a healthier, stronger country and avoid worst-case outcomes. It also happens to be how we can better advocate for our goals.
Pearce Godwin is politically conservative and the founder of the Listen First Project. In a piece advising Republicans to work to reduce toxicity for their own sake, he writes: “As we vigorously contest visions, values, and policies, never surrendering our convictions, we can uphold a basic respect for the humanity of our opponents and all fellow Americans.”
If more leaders and activists—Democrats and Republicans—can rise to that challenge, we may find a way to bridge the toxic divides that threaten our nation. If we can’t, we risk remaining trapped in a dangerous cycle of hostility and contempt. The choice is ours to make.
Zachary Elwood works with Builders, a nonpartisan organization aimed at overcoming toxic polarization. He’s the author of “Defusing American Anger.”Keep ReadingShow less
Load More