Donald Trump pulls US from World Health pandemic reforms
President Donald Trump's administration said Friday the United States was rejecting changes agreed last year for the World Health Organization on its pandemic response, saying they violated the country's sovereignty.
Trump on returning to office on January 20 immediately began his nation's withdrawal from the UN body, but the State Department said the language from last year would still have been binding on the United States.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr, who is a longtime critic of vaccines, said the changes "risk unwarranted interference with our national sovereign right to make health policy."
"We will put Americans first in all our actions and we will not tolerate international policies that infringe on Americans' speech, privacy or personal liberties," they said in a joint statement.
Rubio and Kennedy disassociated the United States from a series of amendments to the International Health Regulations, which provide a legal framework for combatting diseases, agreed last year at the World Health Assembly in Geneva.
"We regret the US decision to reject the amendments," WHO chief Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said in a statement posted on X.
He stressed the amendments "are clear about member states sovereignty," adding that the WHO cannot mandate lockdowns or similar measures.
The changes included a stated "commitment to solidarity and equity" in which a new group would study the needs of developing countries in future emergencies.
Countries have until Saturday to lodge reservations about the amendments. Conservative activists and vaccine skeptics in Britain and Australia, which both have left-leaning governments, have waged public campaigns against the changes.
The amendments came about when the Assembly failed at a more ambitious goal of sealing a new global agreement on pandemics.
Most of the world finally secured a treaty this May, but the United States did not participate as it was in the process of withdrawing from the WHO.
The United States, then under president Joe Biden, took part in the May-June 2024 negotiations, but said it could not support consensus as it demanded protections for US intellectual property rights on vaccine development.
Rubio's predecessor Antony Blinken had welcomed the amendments as progress.
In their rejection of the amendments, Rubio and Kennedy said the changes "fail to adequately address the WHO's susceptibility to the political influence and censorship -- most notably from China -- during outbreaks."
WHO's Ghebreyesus said the body is "impartial and works with all countries to improve people's health."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
TimesLIVE
9 hours ago
- TimesLIVE
Trump, Xi might meet ahead of or during October APEC summit in South Korea, SCMP reports
US President Donald Trump might visit China before going to the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit between October 30 and November 1, or he could meet Chinese leader Xi Jinping on the sidelines of the APEC event in South Korea, the South China Morning Post reported on Sunday citing multiple sources. The two countries have been trying to negotiate an end to an escalating tit-for-tat tariff war that has upended global trade and supply chains. Trump has sought to impose tariffs on US importers for virtually all foreign goods, which he says will stimulate domestic manufacturing and which critics say will make many consumer goods more expensive for Americans. He has called for a universal base tariff rate of 10% on goods imported from all countries, with higher rates for imports from the most "problematic" ones, including China: imports from there now have the highest tariff rate of 55%. Trump has set a deadline of August 12 for the US and China to reach a durable tariffs agreement. A spokesperson for Trump did not respond to a request for comment about the reported plans for a meeting with Xi in the fall. The two countries' most recent high-level meeting was on July 11, when US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi had what both described as a productive and positive meeting in Malaysia about how trade negotiations should proceed. Rubio noted then that Trump had been invited to China to meet with Xi, and said that both leaders "want it to happen." On Friday, China Commerce Minister Wang Wentao said China wants to bring its trade ties with the US back to a stable footing and that recent talks in Europe showed there was no need for a tariff war.
Daily Maverick
12 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
Was Trump's Africa summit just outsourcing America's immigration problem?
The US president reportedly asked the five African nations at his summit to accept third-country asylum seekers. United States (US) President Donald Trump hosted a mini-summit with five African leaders in the White House last week. It was surprising that he met with African leaders at all, given his stance towards the continent. His choice of countries was also interesting — why Senegal, Mauritania, Guinea-Bissau, Liberia and Gabon? Trump told the delegates his administration was 'committed to strengthening our friendships in Africa through economic development efforts that benefit both the US and our partners. And we're shifting from aid to trade,' noting that he had just scrapped the US Agency for International Development (USAid). As to the five countries in attendance, he said they all had 'great land, great minerals, oil deposits', and that he wanted to discuss security. Trump encouraged the leaders to invest more in defence and to 'keep pursuing the fight against terrorism, which is a big problem in Africa'. 'Immigration will also be on the agenda, and I hope we can bring down the high rates of people overstaying visas, and also make progress on the Safe Third Country Agreements.' The supposed wealth of these five countries in critical minerals has been offered as the main reason for their invitation. Mauritanian President Mohamed Ould Ghazouani said his country had 'minerals, rare earths, rare minerals', including manganese, uranium and probably lithium, and was the second-largest African iron ore producer. Liberian President Joseph Boakai also said his country had many minerals and asked for US help in surveying them. Trump added an unintentional comic note by commending Boakai for his 'beautiful English'. He asked where Boakai had learnt to speak it — seemingly unaware that English is Liberia's official language. The country was, after all, founded in the 19th century by free slaves from the US. Critical minerals Gabon's President Brice Clotaire Oligui Nguema also stressed that his country had oil and gas and critical minerals, including manganese, and invited the US to invest in processing it locally, including building the necessary electricity capacity. He said that if the US did not invest, others would. And he appealed to Trump to help Gabon stop maritime piracy in the Gulf of Guinea. Senegal's President Bassirou Diomaye Faye noted that the US was conducting a geological survey in Senegal to help assess the potential of minerals. He added that thanks to US companies, Senegal had discovered oil and about 950 billion cubic metres of gas. So critical and other minerals, and oil and gas, were clearly a factor in the choice of the five. So was security in a chronically insecure region. Some believe the US is looking for countries to host its military bases after Niger's junta forced out the US hub at Agadez. Trump also boasted about the recent US-brokered peace deal between the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and Rwanda. Most of the African leaders thanked him for this, urging him to fulfil his intention to likewise broker peace in Sudan and Libya. But was immigration to the US — a key domestic issue for Trump — the real heart of the matter? The Wall Street Journal reported that before the summit, the US administration sent the five countries requests to accept deportees from the US whose home countries refused them or were slow to take them back. According to an internal document seen by The Wall Street Journal, the African countries would have to agree not to return transferred asylum seekers 'to their home country or country of former habitual residence until a final decision has been made' on their claims for asylum in the US. This arrangement appears similar to that between the former Conservative United Kingdom (UK) government and Rwanda, but which was scrapped last year by the Labour government, which said the deal had not deterred migrants to the UK. Reports say America previously tried to persuade Nigeria to accept an agreement with Venezuelan deportees — but Abuja refused. This might suggest that Trump is turning to smaller, perhaps more pliable, countries to try to persuade them to accept asylum seekers or deportees. The Guardian reported on Wednesday that five men from Vietnam, Jamaica, Laos, Cuba and Yemen — convicted of crimes ranging from child rape to murder — had arrived in Eswatini on a Safe Third Country deportation flight from the US. On 4 July, the US deported eight men convicted of violent crimes to South Sudan. It is unclear how the five African governments responded to Trump's request, and none mentioned it in the public part of the meeting. Two overlapping goals Institute for Security Studies (ISS) Research Officer Zenge Simakoloyi said Trump's summit seemed mainly to have two overlapping goals: to test the waters on processing asylum seekers offshore, and to diversify US critical mineral supply chains away from China. Nigeria's rejection of the Venezuelans suggested that externalising the US immigration problem would be difficult, he said. According to Aimée-Noël Mbiyozo, ISS Migration Senior Research Consultant: 'There are no good precedents for outsourcing asylum processes.' She noted that the Australian effort to do so had cost at least A$1-billion annually since 2012, and had 'failed to achieve all its objectives, including stopping people smuggling'. Simakoloyi noted that countering China in African trade and mineral access was a hallmark of US foreign policy in Africa, as evidenced by the Lobito Corridor carrying minerals from Zambia and the DRC to be exported from Angola. He suggested Senegal's President Faye could serve the US as a diplomatic bridge to the Sahel's juntas, as Senegal had established a rapport with Mali and Burkina Faso's military governments. Trump's shift from aid to trade and investment in Africa is in principle a good idea, though the abrupt termination of aid has caused significant distress on the continent. (Unconfirmed reports this week suggest that Pepfar – the US programme against HIV/Aids — may be reinstated.) But how the US trades and invests in Africa will be critical. As Gabon's Nguema told Trump: 'We also want our raw materials to be processed locally in our country so that we can create value and to create jobs for youth so that they stop dying. They are crossing the sea, the ocean to go to other countries.' That would be a more constructive and ethical approach to relations than outsourcing the asylum process and dumping criminals from other countries onto Africa. DM
Daily Maverick
14 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
US Justice Department's hardened efforts to denaturalise citizens is likely to violate constitutional rights
An aggressive new directive has millions of Americans who became legal citizens through the naturalisation process living in fear of having their citizenship revoked. The Trump administration wants to take away citizenship from naturalised Americans on a massive scale. Although a recent US Justice Department memo prioritises national security cases, it directs employees to 'maximally pursue denaturalisation proceedings in all cases permitted by law and supported by the evidence' across 10 broad priority categories. Denaturalisation is different from deportation, which removes non-citizens from the country. With civil denaturalisation, the government files a lawsuit to strip people's US citizenship after they have become citizens, turning them back into non-citizens who can then be deported. The government can only do this in specific situations. It must prove someone ' illegally procured ' citizenship by not meeting the requirements, or that they lied or hid important facts during the citizenship process. The Trump administration's 'maximal enforcement' approach means pursuing any case where evidence might support taking away citizenship, regardless of priority level or strength of evidence. As our earlier research documented, this has already led to cases like that of Baljinder Singh, whose citizenship was revoked based on a name discrepancy that could easily have resulted from a translator's error rather than intentional fraud. A brief history For most of American history, taking away citizenship has been rare. But it increased dramatically in the 1940s and 1950s during the Red Scare period characterised by intense suspicion of communism. The US government targeted people it thought were communists or Nazi supporters. Between 1907 and 1967, more than 22,000 Americans lost their citizenship this way. Everything changed in 1967 when the Supreme Court decided Afroyim v Rusk. The court said the government usually cannot take away citizenship without the person's consent. It left open only cases involving fraud during the citizenship process. After this decision, denaturalisation became extremely rare. From 1968 to 2013, fewer than 150 people lost their citizenship. They were mostly war criminals who had hidden their past. How the process works In criminal lawsuits, defendants get free lawyers if they can't afford one. They get jury trials. The government must prove guilt 'beyond a reasonable doubt' – the highest standard of proof. But in most denaturalisation cases, the government files a civil suit, in which none of these protections exists. People facing denaturalisation get no free lawyer, meaning poor defendants often face the government alone. There's no jury trial – just a judge deciding whether someone deserves to remain American. The burden of proof is lower – 'clear and convincing evidence' instead of 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. Most important, there's no time limit, so the government can go back decades to build cases. As law professors who study citizenship, we believe this system violates basic constitutional rights. The Supreme Court has called citizenship a fundamental right. Chief Justice Earl Warren in 1958 described it as the ' right to have rights.' In our reading of the law, taking away such a fundamental right through civil procedures that lack basic constitutional protection – no right to counsel for those who can't afford it, no jury trial and a lower burden of proof – seems to violate the due process of law required by the constitution. The bigger problem is what citizenship-stripping policy does to democracy. When the government can strip citizenship from naturalised Americans for decades-old conduct through civil procedures with minimal due process protection – pursuing cases based on evidence that might not meet criminal standards – it undermines the security and permanence that citizenship is supposed to provide. This creates a system where naturalised citizens face vulnerability that can last their entire lives, potentially chilling their full participation in American democracy. The Justice Department memo establishes 10 priority categories for denaturalisation cases. They range from national security threats and war crimes to various forms of fraud, financial crimes and, most importantly, any other cases it deems 'sufficiently important to pursue'. This 'maximal enforcement' approach means pursuing not just clear cases of fraud, but also any case where evidence might support taking away citizenship, no matter how weak or old the evidence is. This creates fear throughout immigrant communities. About 20 million naturalised Americans now must worry that any mistake in their decades-old immigration paperwork could cost them their citizenship. A two-tier system This policy effectively creates two different types of American citizens. Native-born Americans never have to worry about losing their citizenship, no matter what they do. But naturalised Americans face vulnerability that can last their entire lives. This has already happened. A woman who became a naturalised citizen in 2007 helped her boss with paperwork that was later used in fraud. She cooperated with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, was characterised by prosecutors as only a 'minimal participant', completed her sentence and still faced losing her citizenship decades later because she didn't report the crime on her citizenship application – even though she hadn't been charged at the time. The Justice Department's directive to 'maximally pursue' cases across 10 broad categories – combined with the first Trump administration's efforts to review more than 700,000 naturalisation files – represents an unprecedented expansion of denaturalisation efforts. The policy will almost certainly face legal challenges on constitutional grounds, but the damage may already be done. When naturalised citizens fear that their status could be revoked, it undermines the security and permanence that citizenship is supposed to provide. The Supreme Court, in Afroyim v Rusk, was focused on protecting existing citizens from losing their citizenship. The constitutional principle behind that decision – that citizenship is a fundamental right that can't be arbitrarily taken away by whoever happens to be in power – applies equally to how the government handles denaturalisation cases today. The Trump administration's directive, combined with court procedures that lack basic constitutional protections, risks creating a system that the Afroyim v Rusk decision sought to prevent – one where, as the Supreme Court said: 'A group of citizens temporarily in office can deprive another group of citizens of their citizenship.' DM First published by The Conversation. Cassandra Burke Robertson is professor of law and director of the Center for Professional Ethics at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio. Irina D Manta is professor of law and director of the Center for Intellectual Property Law at Hofstra University in Long Island, New York. This story first appeared in our weekly Daily Maverick 168 newspaper, which is available countrywide for R35.
