SATURDAY: Commander hears and tackles the WHO!

SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 2025

Is a modern American Samson tearing the pillars down? In the realm of children's books, Horton famously heard a Who. 

Last week, a certain commander—he may also be a nutcase!—wrestled the WHO to the ground.

The WHO in question here is the World Health Organization. Our story starts with a news report from the New York Times on the day the commander took office:

Trump Withdraws U.S. From World Health Organization

President Trump moved quickly on Monday [January 20] to withdraw the United States from the World Health Organization, a move that public health experts say will undermine the nation’s standing as a global health leader and make it harder to fight the next pandemic.

In an executive order issued about eight hours after he took the oath of office, Mr. Trump cited a string of reasons for the withdrawal, including the W.H.O.’s “mishandling of the COVID-19 pandemic,” and the “failure to adopt urgently needed reforms.” He said the agency demands “unfairly onerous payments” from the United States, and complained that China pays less.

According to the commander—he may also be a Samson—the WHO had been demanding "onerous payments" from Us. The WHO had been requiring that They pay much, much less.

For that reason, the commander had announced his plan to take a hike from the WHO. The Times report didn't attempt to state any numbers regarding those onerous payments.

This Times report never appeared in print editions. Apparently, it wasn't deemed important enough. Online, the Times report does include this correction:

A correction was made on Jan. 21, 2025: An earlier version of this article incorrectly described the WHO’s $6.8 billion budget. It is the organization’s biennial budget, not annual.

One years? Two years? Was it "close enough for journalistic work?" In this vale of tears, had it seemed to make a big difference?

At any rate, the commander had quickly announced his plan to abandon the WHO. One day later, CNN added some numbers to the mix:

What is the World Health Organization and why does Trump want to leave it?

[...]

There is also a financial aspect to Trump’s animosity. The president has previously said that the US contributes around $500 million a year to WHO, compared to China’s $40 million, despite its far larger population.

As he signed Monday’s executive order, Trump was asked whether, as president during Covid-19, he appreciated the importance of agencies like WHO.

“I do, but not when you’re being ripped off like we are,” he replied.

The commander said we were being ripped off—and CNN cited his numbers. But were his numbers accurate?

Within a very lengthy report, CNN made no attempt to say. On January 27, it fell to a reporter at the Fox News site to take the story further. 

Regarding those numbers, the commander had gone on and on, then on and on, at a Las Vegas rally. As you scan the Fox News report, please note the reference to the fact check from NPR:

Trump open to considering re-entry into World Health Organization: 'They'd have to clean it up'

President Donald Trump said he was open to potentially rejoining the World Health Organization (WHO), just days after he signed a Day One executive order that withdrew the U.S. from the international group.

During a rally at Circa Resort & Casino in Downtown Las Vegas, the president told those in attendance that it was unfair a country like China, with a population much greater than the U.S., was only paying a fraction of what the U.S. was paying annually to the WHO.

"We paid $500 million a year and China paid $39 million a year despite a much larger population. Think of that. China's paying $39 million to have 1.4 billion people, we pay $500 million we have—no one knows what the hell we have, does anyone know? We have so many people pouring in we have no idea," Trump told rally goers on Saturday.

"They offered me at $39 million, they said 'We'll let you back in for $39 million,' they're going to reduce it from [$500 million] to [$39 million], and I turned them down, because it became so popular I didn't know if it would be well received even at [$39 million], but maybe we would consider doing it again, I don’t know, they have to clean it up a bit." 

An analysis of national contributions to the WHO from NPR found that the U.S. pays for roughly 10% of the WHO's budget, while China pays about 3%.

[Bracketed insertions by Fox News]

The commander had said he might beat back his great anger and walk back his stand. First, though, the WHO would have to offer a better deal regarding those crazy payments.

Meanwhile, there you saw the specific numbers the commanders had been citing. It was much as CNN had said:

Thanks to the rip-off by the WHO, We had to pay $500 million. Meanwhile, They gained admission to the WHO for only $39 million.

To its (minor) credit, the Fox News report had cited an NPR fact-check. As of a few days ago, we were still unable to find any other fact-checks of those numbers. With this, as with so much of his madness, Blue news orgs had decided to let the commander's angry claims go.

Fox News linked to the NPR fact-check. At this site, we'd already seen it—and sure enough! When we reviewed it, Sad!

We'd already seen the NPR effort. Eventually, it offers a surprise:

Assessing Trump's claim that U.S. pays 'unfair' share of dues to WHO

Newly inaugurated, President Trump took a set of thick, black sharpies on Monday [January 20] and signed a flurry of executive orders—including one that has people in the global health community deeply concerned. That order would withdraw the United States from the World Health Organization, a U.N. global health agency the U.S. helped found in 1948.

As he penned his name to the order, Trump began by saying, "Ooh, that's a big one." He then offered a set of spontaneous remarks about the rationale behind the withdrawal, which focused on what he and his team perceive as an unfair allocation of dues.

He noted that the U.S. pays WHO $500 million annually compared to China's $39 million contribution. But Trump raised the point: Should the U.S. pay so much more than China when its population (1.4 billion people) is way larger than the American population (341 million estimate by the Census Bureau).

"Seemed a little unfair to me," he said.

[...]

The World Health Organization receives funding from two pots. The first is a set of assessed contributions from its nearly 200 member states. Each assessment is determined by the United Nations and based on a country's "capacity to pay," which involves both the size of its population and wealth. Member states vote to approve the assessments at the World Health Assembly every other year. For the years 2024-2025, WHO says that number has been set at $264 million for the U.S. and $181 million for China.

Say what? According to the WHO, the actual numbers differ from those the excited commander had blared. 

"For the years 2024-2025" (whatever that means), the actual numbers were now said to be this:

Us: $264 million 
Them:  $181 million 

According to the NPR fact-check, that's what the WHO said. Meanwhile, are those numbers accurate? As with CNN, so too here:

The NPR fact-check never attempted to say. 

For the record, the fact-check had been composed by a "freelance contributor" to a minor NPR site. And from there, the NPR fact-check drifted off into what we would regard as a conceptual La-La Land.  

You can review where it went for yourself. We'd call the conceptual cluelessness massive from that point on.

(Frankly, we weep when we see it! When we see that this seems to be the best our own Blue America can do at this (very late) date.)

In conclusion, we offer a summary:

The commander had leaped into action, assailing the rip-off by the fiendish WHO. Below, you see the numbers he constantly cited—and you see some (possible) alternate facts:

Numbers according to the commander:
Us: $500 million 
Them:  $39 million 

Numbers according to the WHO:
Us: $264 million 
Them:  $181 million

Which set of numbers is accurate? We know of no sign that anyone cares. But if the WHO's numbers are accurate, the commander had done it again!

Is the commander also a madman? Beyond that, is he possibly a Samson, tearing the pillars of the American project down?

Is the commander also a Samson? Is he a stone-cold nut?

Is the commander a nutcase? Over here in Blue America, does anyone actually care enough to actually try to find out?

Discourse on method: We last searched for fact-checks earlier this week. More than a week after the commander's initial action, only that NPR effort appeared. 

As that fact-check continues, we regard its reasoning as remarkably hapless. This seems to be the best we massively self-impressed Blues are able to do at this point.

Is a Samson pulling the pillars down? What keeps us from floating a "yes?"