Cookies on this website
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you click 'Continue' we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies and you won't see this message again. Click 'Find out more' for information on how to change your cookie settings.
The Conversation logo

It wouldn’t make much sense to sack the fire service during a forest fire, yet that’s effectively what US President Donald Trump has done by suspending funding to the World Health Organization (WHO) in the middle of a pandemic. The WHO is by no means perfect, but undermining the world’s only global public health agency does not serve US interests.

The US is the biggest contributor to the 194-member WHO, providing around US$400 million (£322 million) annually, which makes up about a fifth of the budget. The organisation has been asked to do more with less for decades and is already in a fairly perilous financial situation.

Although the move is characteristically shortsighted, this time Trump’s decision was premeditated. On April 10, he hinted that US funding would be withdrawn, adding: “We’re looking at it very, very closely … we’ll have a lot to say about it.”

The following week he confirmed the suspension of funding and blamed the WHO for “severely mismanaging and covering up the spread of coronavirus”. He argued that the organisation had been too slow to investigate the outbreak and had been complicit in China’s suppression and misreporting of cases.

Read the full article on The Conversation website, written by Luke Allen, GP Academic Clinical Fellow in Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences

Oxford is a subscribing member of The ConversationFind out how you can write for The Conversation.

Similar stories

PhD Student of the Year 2022 Winner!

Congratulations to Nuffield Department of Women's & Reproductive Health DPhil student Josephine Agyeman-Duah on being named winner of PhD Student of the Year at the Postgrad Awards 2022.

Ethics at Westminster: A Workshop on Public Values and the Pandemic

At an event organised by the UK Pandemic Ethics Accelerator at the House of Commons on 18 May 2022, parliamentarians, policy makers and academics joined together to discuss how to bring ethical thinking and debate into public policy on pandemic recovery and preparedness, and how to involve the public.

Student Prizes for Biomedical Sciences and Medicine 2021-2022

Congratulations to all our Biomedical Sciences students and Medicine students who have been awarded prizes during the 2021-2022 academic year.

New study finds that politicians typically enjoy longer lives than general populations

New data show politicians have a considerable survival advantage over general populations, based on information from 11 countries and over 57,500 politicians. In some countries this survival advantage is at the highest level for 150 years, and life expectancy at age 45 was found to be around seven years higher for politicians compared to general populations in certain countries.

Five ways the pandemic has affected routine medical care

Since the beginning of the pandemic, COVID has infected at least a third of the UK population and is estimated to have factored in the deaths of almost 200,000 people in the UK. But critically, COVID has also had a devastating impact on our healthcare systems. While this was expected, new evidence is beginning to reveal the scope of the issue – in particular the effects for people living with long-term health conditions.