Trump Freezes U.S. Funding to the World Health Organization as Pandemic Rages On
- President Donald Trump announced Tuesday that he would freeze funding to the World Health Organization for 60-90 days as his administration looks into the agency.
- The move comes after Trump announced he would consider cutting the agency’s funds last week.
- Trump has criticized the W.H.O. for being “China-centric,” a criticism it has also faced from other Republican lawmakers over the course of the pandemic.
- A total halt on contributions from the U.S. could run deep, as it makes up nearly 15% of the W.H.O.’s funding.
Trump Freezes Funding to the W.H.O.
Exactly one week after announcing that he was considering cutting United States funding to the World Health Organization, President Donald Trump moved to do just that Tuesday afternoon.
“I’m instructing my administration to halt funding of the World Health Organization while a review is conducted to assess the World Health Organization’s role in severely mismanaging and covering up the spread of the coronavirus,” Trump said from the White House. “Everybody knows what’s going on there.”
During his press conference, Trump also repeated his stance that the W.H.O. took China’s claims about the coronavirus “at face value.”
“One of the most dangerous and costly decisions from the WHO was its disastrous decision to oppose travel restrictions from China and other nations,” Trump said.
“They were very much opposed to what we did. Fortunately, I was not convinced and suspended travel from China, saving untold numbers of lives. Thousands and thousands of people would have died. Had other nations likewise suspended travel from China, countless more lives would have been saved.”
Trump went on to say that the freeze to W.H.O. funding would continue for 60 to 90 days. A potential two to three-month freeze is notable because as many people have pointed out, the U.S. and the world are still in the middle of the COVID-19 pandemic.
“Fighting a global pandemic requires international cooperation and reliance on science and data,” Patrice Harris, president of the American Medical Association, said. “Cutting funding to the WHO – rather than focusing on solutions – is a dangerous move at a precarious moment for the world.”
On behalf of the AMA, Harris went on to urge Trump to reconsider this decision.
The secretary general of the United Nations said Tuesday night that while “it is possible that the same facts have had different readings by different entities,” the W.H.O.“must be supported, as it is absolutely critical to the world’s efforts to win the war against COVID-19.”
Early Wednesday morning, billionaire Bill Gates tweeted, “Halting funding for the World Health Organization during a world health crisis is as dangerous as it sounds. Their work is slowing the spread of COVID-19 and if that work is stopped no other organization can replace them. The world needs @WHO now more than ever.”
After the U.S.—which contributes to nearly 15% of the W.H.O.’s funding—the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is the W.H.O.’s next-biggest contributor. According to the W.H.O., the Gates’ charity makes up almost 10% of its funding.
Still, a reduction of 15% of its funding would mean a deep cut for the international health agency. Currently, the U.S. has committed $893 million during the W.H.O.’s current two-year funding period. According to international security professor Adam Kamradt-Scott at the University of Sydney, if the U.S. were to pull both member dues and voluntary contributions, that could end up bankrupting the W.H.O.
Will the W.H.O. See U.S. Funding Again?
One of the major unanswered questions regarding Trump’s decision is whether or not the W.H.O. might get that funding back and how long it could take.
According to Evan Hollander, a spokesperson for House Appropriations Committee Democrats, “The President does not have the unilateral authority to withhold the United States’ contribution to the World Health Organization. Even if he did, refusing to fund the WHO would only weaken the international tools to fight this pandemic and future global health emergencies.”
On that note, it’s unclear when payments to the W.H.O. will stop and how much authority Trump even has to suspend them. That’s because they’re actually authorized by Congress, and Congress has already ignored his administration’s proposal to slash W.H.O. funding in recent years.
Still, Trump may likely see a surge of support from his party. Senator Rick Scott (R-Fl.) has repeatedly pushed Congress to investigate the W.H.O’s response to COVID-19 and its relationship with China. Both he and Senator Martha McSally (R-Az.) have called for the W.H.O. Director General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus to step down.
Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC.) has also pledged to support a W.H.O. funding cut in the Senate’s next appropriations bill.
Why Is Trump Defunding the W.H.O.?
Over the last week, Trump has repeatedly accused the W.H.O., an agency of the United Nations, of being “China-centric,” this seemingly for two main reasons.
The first is because on January 14, the W.H.O. referenced a preliminary investigation from Chinese authorities who said there was “no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission of the novel #coronavirus.” Notably, health officials now know that not to be true.
The second has to do with Trump’s decision to restrict travel with China, a decision made at the end of January.
At that time, the W.H.O.—though not directly referencing the United States—said it did not recommend limiting trade and travel with China.
“In fact, we oppose it,” Ghebreyesus said.
“In general, evidence shows that restricting the movement of people and goods during public health emergencies is ineffective in most situations and may divert resources from other interventions,” the agency added.
On Feb. 11, the W.H.O. did revise its travel restriction recommendations somewhat by saying that such restrictions “…may have a public health rationale at the beginning of the containment phase of an outbreak, as they may allow affected countries to implement sustained response measures, and non-affected countries to gain time to initiate and implement effective preparedness measures. Such restrictions, however, need to be short in duration, proportionate to the public health risks, and be reconsidered regularly as the situation evolves.”
During this time and even up until late February, Trump had actually been praising the W.H.O., saying it had been working “very hard and very smart.”
Trump’s shift in tone, however, came last week when he seemingly announced he would be freezing W.H.O. funding, though he later backtracked when talking to reporters, saying he was only looking at freezing it.
“They actually criticized and disagreed with my travel ban at the time I did it,” Trump said, “and they were wrong. They’ve been wrong about a lot of things. They had a lot of information very early and they didn’t to want to — they seemed to be very “China-centric.”
“They called it wrong,” he added. “They called it wrong. They really, they missed the call. They could have called it months earlier. They would have known, and should have known, and they probably did know.”
Following that, the W.H.O. defended itself and its relationship with China, Ghebreyesus’ senior adviser Bruce Aylward saying, “It was absolutely critical in the early part of this outbreak to have full access to everything possible, to get on the ground and work with the Chinese to understand this.”
“This is what we did with every other hard hit country like Spain and had nothing to do with China specifically,” he added.
Aylward also defended the W.H.O.’s January recommendation to keep borders open, saying that Beijing had worked hard to identify and detect early cases and their contacts, ensuring they didn’t travel.
Since Trump’s move Tuesday to suspend W.H.O. funding, China has also criticized the president, a foreign ministry spokesperson saying, “This U.S. decision will weaken the WHO’s capabilities and undermine international cooperation. China will as always support the WHO in playing an important role in international public health and global anti-epidemic response.”
See what others are saying: (The New York Times) (Reuters) (Bloomberg)
White Supremacist Propaganda Reached Record High in 2022, ADL Finds
“We cannot sit idly by as these extremists pollute our communities with their hateful trash,” ADL CEO Jonathan Greenblatt said.
White supremacist propaganda in the U.S. reached record levels in 2022, according to a report published Wednesday by the Anti-Defamation League’s Center of Extremism.
The ADL found over 6,700 cases of white supremacist propaganda in 2022, which marks a 38% jump from the nearly 4,900 cases the group found in 2021. It also represents the highest number of incidents ever recorded by the ADL.
The propaganda tallied by the anti-hate organization includes the distribution of racist, antisemitic, and homophobic flyers, banners, graffiti, and more. This propaganda has spread substantially since 2018, when the ADL found just over 1,200 incidents.
“There’s no question that white supremacists and antisemites are trying to terrorize and harass Americans with their propaganda,” ADL CEO Jonathan Greenblatt said in a statement. “We cannot sit idly by as these extremists pollute our communities with their hateful trash.”
The report found that there were at least 50 white supremacist groups behind the spread of propaganda in 2022, but 93% of it came from just three groups. One of those groups was also responsible for 43% of the white supremacist events that took place last year.
White supremacist events saw a startling uptick of their own, with the ADL documenting at least 167, a 55% jump from 2021.
Propaganda was found in every U.S. state except for Hawaii, and events were documented in 33 states, most heavily in Massachusetts, California, Ohio, and Florida.
“The sheer volume of white supremacist propaganda distributions we are documenting around the country is alarming and dangerous,” Oren Segal, Vice President of the ADL’s Center on Extremism said in a statement. “Hardly a day goes by without communities being targeted by these coordinated, hateful actions, which are designed to sow anxiety and create fear.”
“We need a whole-of-society approach to combat this activity, including elected officials, community leaders, and people of good faith coming together and condemning this activity forcefully,” Segal continued.
See what others are saying: (Axios) (The Hill) (The New York Times)
Adidas Financial Woes Continue, Company on Track for First Annual Loss in Decades
Adidas has labeled 2023 a “transition year” for the company.
Adidas’ split with musician Kanye West has left the company with financial problems due to surplus Yeezy products, putting the sportswear giant in the position to potentially suffer its first annual loss in over 30 years.
Adidas dropped West last year after he made a series of antisemitic remarks on social media and other broadcasts. His Yeezy line was a staple for Adidas, and the surplus product is due, in part, to the brand’s own decision to continue production during the split.
According to CEO Bjorn Gulden, Adidas continued production of only the items already in the pipeline to prevent thousands of people from losing their jobs. However, that has led to the unfortunate overabundance of Yeezy sneakers and clothes.
On Wednesday, Gulden said that selling the shoes and donating the proceeds makes more sense than giving them away due to the Yeezy resale market — which has reportedly shot up 30% since October.
“If we sell it, I promise that the people who have been hurt by this will also get something good out of this,” Gulden said in a statement to the press.
However, Gulden also said that West is entitled to a portion of the proceeds of the sale of Yeezys per his royalty agreement.
Adidas announced in February that, following its divergence from West, it is facing potential sales losses totaling around $1.2 billion and profit losses of around $500 million.
If it decides to not sell any more Yeezy products, Adidas is facing a projected annual loss of over $700 million.
Outside of West, Adidas has taken several heavy profit blows recently. Its operating profit reportedly fell by 66% last year, a total of more than $700 million. It also pulled out of Russia after the country’s invasion of Ukraine last year, which cost Adidas nearly $60 million dollars. Additionally, China’s “Zero Covid” lockdowns last year caused in part a 36% drop in revenue for Adidas compared to years prior.
As a step towards a solution, Gulden announced that the company is slashing its dividends from 3.30 euros to 0.70 euro cents per share pending shareholder approval.
Adidas has labeled 2023 a “transition year” for the company.
“Adidas has all the ingredients to be successful. But we need to put our focus back on our core: product, consumers, retail partners, and athletes,” Gulden said. “I am convinced that over time we will make Adidas shine again. But we need some time.”
See what others are saying: (The Washington Post) (The New York Times) (CNN)
Immigration Could Be A Solution to Nursing Home Labor Shortages
98% of nursing homes in the United States are experiencing difficulty hiring staff.
The Labor Crisis
A recent National Bureau of Economic Research paper has offered up a solution to the nursing home labor shortage: immigration.
According to a 2022 American Health Care Association survey, six in ten nursing homes are limiting new patients due to staffing issues. The survey also says that 87% of nursing homes have staffing shortages and 98% are experiencing difficulty hiring.
The National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) outlined in their paper that increased immigration could help solve the labor shortage in nursing homes. Immigrants make up 19% of nursing home workers.
With every 10% increase in female immigration, nursing assistant hours go up by 0.7% and registered nursing hours go up by 1.1% And with that same immigration increase, short-term hospitalizations of nursing home residents go down by 0.6%.
Additionally, the State Department issued 145% more EB-3 documents, which are employment-based visas, for healthcare workers in the 2022 fiscal year than in 2019, suggesting that more people are coming to the U.S. to work in health care.
However, according to Skilled Nursing News, in August of 2022, the approval process from beginning to end for an RN can take between seven to nine months.
Displeasure about immigration has exploded since Pres. Joe Biden took office in 2021. According to a Gallup study published in February, around 40% of American adults want to see immigration decrease. That is a steep jump from 19% in 2021, and it is the highest the figure has been since 2016.
However, more than half of Democrats still are satisfied with immigration and want to see it increased. But with a divided Congress, the likelihood of any substantial immigration change happening is pretty slim.