Trump vows US exit from WHO, plans alternative health coalition

Trump vows US exit from WHO, promises alternative coalition

Donald Trump has placed the World Health Organization back at the center of the geopolitical stage. His opening message outlines an explicit plan: terminate the pandemic agreement, withdraw the United States from the WHO, and form a new coalition of nations to protect health while preserving sovereignty and freedom. In the text attributed to the former president, the WHO is described as "a corrupt globalist fraud funded by the US but owned and controlled by China," accused of covering for the Chinese Communist Party during the cobi19 crisis. Reactions were immediate, ranging from skepticism about its authenticity to calls for verifying if the video was AI-generated.

What exactly does the plan attributed to Trump say?

The circulating ten-point plan includes four concrete commitments: canceling the contract with the WHO, preventing public health from being used as a pretext for global governance, withdrawing the US from the agency, and seeking an alternative coalition of countries. The text adds a striking economic detail: after canceling the previous agreement, the WHO allegedly offered Washington between $25 and $30 million to return, an offer the former president claims to have rejected. This figure alone is the hook of the entire story.

The credibility of the message was questioned from the start. Several commentators argue the video is fake, generated by AI, noting lip-sync discrepancies. Others counter that the information appears in traditional media like Marca, suggesting the substance deserves credit regardless of the audiovisual piece. The discussion devolved into debates over who can read English lips and who cannot, a distraction best set aside to focus on verifiable facts.

The financial tug-of-war: who really pays for the WHO?

Here lies the economic core. Some analyses argue the WHO does not depend on US money as much as the narrative suggests, claiming the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation contributes significantly more than the US, which also channels funds through GAVI and CEPI. There are two objections: first, official contribution figures mix foundations and confuse readers; second, if Washington withdraws, the gap will be filled precisely by the philanthropic structure Trump identifies as part of the problem.

The paradox is significant. If US public money leaves Geneva while private funds remain, the net result could be a WHO less dependent on a state and more reliant on foundations. Proponents of withdrawal argue this already happens and the institution is discredited; critics respond that leaving without an alternative only legitimizes the private donors they sought to combat. A full line-by-line calculation reveals differences that surprise those who only read headlines.

The 2020 precedent and Biden's return

Withdrawal would not be unprecedented. It occurred in 2020 during the first term, with re-entry happening in February 2021 under the Biden administration. Several commentators highlight this fact to temper enthusiasm: the announcement comes before taking office, and the previous cycle proves the decision is reversible depending on who occupies the White House. The lingering question is what prevents history from repeating itself.

On this basis, an alternative is proposed: creating a parallel organization to discuss pandemics, requiring members to leave the WHO. Some view this as more effective than unilateral withdrawal, weakening the institution without leaving a vacuum for others to fill. Others see it as merely a PR move.

Two criticisms running through the issue

The first concerns consistency: it is noted that Trump promotes mRNA cancer vaccines and his investment circle has interests in mRNA factories, undermining the anti-establishment narrative. The second concerns opportunity: arguments suggest leaving the WHO won't change the global health agenda, and the next pandemic crisis will likely put the agency back at the center. "Don't forget to applaud at 8 PM," one comment sarcastically summarizes.

The matter ends where it began: an exit announcement, an undefined coalition, and no certainty about the video's authenticity. What is clear is that funding, private donors, and the reversibility of the decision are the three axes that will determine the outcome.