Trump's WHO Decision Draws Torrent of Criticism

Plus, big problems for small business aid programs

Trump WHO Funding Halt Draws Torrent of Criticism

President Trump’s announcement Tuesday that he will suspend congressionally approved funding for the World Health Organization (WHO) drew a torrent of criticism from Democrats, health experts, business groups and global leaders.

What Trump said: During his coronavirus briefing Tuesday evening, Trump said he would halt payments to the WHO pending a 60-to-90-day review of its pandemic response, charging that the UN agency had made a series of deadly mistakes in trying to combat the global outbreak. Trump said his administration would “assess the World Health Organization’s role in severely mismanaging and covering up the spread of the coronavirus.” He added: “So much death has been caused by their mistakes.”

Wait, what is the WHO? Founded in 1948 and based in Geneva, it is the United Nations agency responsible for global public health. It now has 194 member states and more than 7,000 employees in 150 offices across the globe. During health emergencies, the WHO says it seeks to identify and mitigate risks, support the development of necessary tools and “support delivery of essential health services in fragile settings.”

The WHO is funded through membership fees and voluntary contributions, and the United States is its largest donor. For the 2018-2019 biennial funding cycle, the United States reportedly paid $237 million and another $656 million in voluntary contributions for a total of $893 million, or about 15% of the agency’s roughly $6 billion budget.

Shifting blame: Seeking to deflect blame and fend off criticism over his slow response to the spread of the virus, Trump has joined some congressional Republicans in targeting the WHO, ramping up his attacks in recent weeks. He has called the WHO “very China centric,” criticized the group for opposing his decision in late January to restrict travel from China, and charged that the agency “pushed China’s misinformation” about the coronavirus and failed to properly investigate early claims about the virus’s ability to spread from person to person.

“In effect, Mr. Trump was accusing the world’s leading health organization of making all of the mistakes that he has made since the virus first emerged in China and then spread rapidly,” Michael D. Shear and Donald G. McNeil Jr. write at The New York Times. As numerous news outlets have noted, Trump himself praised China’s pandemic response in January, as his administration was negotiating a trade deal with Beijing.

Global context: “The question of whether the W.H.O. was not aggressive enough in recommending action against the virus has been raised in other countries. Some governments have noted that the organization’s leadership did not challenge China’s assertion in mid-January that there was not human-to-human transmission of the coronavirus,” the Times notes. “But the W.H.O. did issue urgent advisories throughout January about the potential dangers from the virus and announced that it constituted a ‘public health emergency of international concern’ a day before the Trump administration made a similar declaration.”

The blowback: “World leaders have urged Trump to rethink the decision, with China calling for the U.S. to fulfill its obligations, Germany and New Zealand calling for unity, while Australia’s Prime Minister Scott Morrison said the WHO was not immune from criticism,” Forbes’s Isabel Togoh notes.

While some congressional Republicans publicly supported Trump’s decision, condemnation for the move was widespread. Among the reactions:

  • House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called the decision “senseless” and another example of Trump’s ineffective response to the pandemic. “This decision is dangerous, illegal and will be swiftly challenged,” she said.

     
  • WHO Director-General Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said Wednesday that he regrets Trump’s decision. “The United States of America has been a long-standing and generous friend to the WHO and we hope it will continue to be so,” he said.

     
  • U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said in a statement that the WHO “is absolutely critical to the world’s efforts to win the war against COVID-19” and that now is “not the time to reduce the resources for the operations of the World Health Organization or any other humanitarian organization in the fight against the virus.”

     
  • The American Medical Association called Trump’s decision “a dangerous step in the wrong direction” and urged him to reconsider.

     
  • Bill Gates, whose Gates Foundation is among the largest voluntary donors to the WHO, criticized Trump’s move in a tweet: “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.”

     
  • U.S. Chamber of Commerce Vice President Myron Brilliant said that while the business group supports reforming the WHO, “cutting the WHO’s funding during the COVID-19 pandemic is not in U.S. interests given the organization’s critical role assisting other countries — particularly in the developing world — in their response.”

Can Trump really halt WHO funding? As Pelosi’s comment above indicates, Democrats say withholding WHO money would be illegal. “President Trump is violating the same spending laws that brought about his impeachment,” said Evan Hollander, spokesman for the House Appropriations Committee, according to The Washington Post.

“It’s unclear exactly what mechanism Trump intends to use to withhold WHO funding, much of which is appropriated by Congress,” CNBC’s Berkeley Lovelace Jr.s reported. “The president typically does not have the authority to unilaterally redirect congressional funding.”



The administration reportedly may argue that the president has the right to redirect WHO funds to any “global aid” program, a position some Democrats reportedly said may be accurate. A senior Democratic aide told the Post that Democrats were reviewing their options, “including asking GAO for an opinion given their opinion that the President’s hold on Ukraine funding was illegal.”

Big Problems for Small Business Aid Programs

The multi-billion-dollar federal programs intended to assist small businesses during the coronavirus crisis are seeing massive demand for loans and grants, but problems with funding and execution are severely hampering their effectiveness.

The largest, the $350 billion Paycheck Protection Program, is expected to run out of available funds by the end of the day, the Wall Street Journal reported Wednesday. About 1.3 million applications for loans worth more than $289 billion had been approved by Wednesday morning, the Journal said.

Lawmakers are feuding over the best way to provide a $250 billion boost for the program, with Republicans calling for a simple bill to provide the increase and Democrats pushing for a more complicated package that includes new regulations as well as additional assistance for other groups, including hospitals and state and local governments.

As lawmakers battle over replenishing the PPP — which, it should be noted, has paid out far less in loans and grants than it has approved — another program aimed at small businesses is running into difficulties of its own.

The Economic Injury Disaster Loan program, designed to get cash quickly into the hands of small business owners who have been hurt by natural disasters, received a $10 billion boost in the $2 trillion relief package that became law in late March. In addition to loans, the EIDL program is offering small business owners grants of up to $10,000 that were supposed to arrive within three days. But it has been plagued by delays and a lack of readily available funds, CNBC reported Wednesday, leaving many applicants high and dry weeks after receiving approval.

Like the PPP, the EIDL program is overseen by the Small Business Administration, which has struggled to keep up with the demand from desperate entrepreneurs. The average loan request has been about $200,000, but the agency has set a maximum of $15,000 due to the size of the demand and the limited funding. The total available for loans is about $7.3 billion, CNBC said, but demand is in the range of $372 billion — a massive difference.

“Sadly, the disaster loan program is a complete disaster,” Holly Wade, director of research and policy analysis at the National Federation of Independent Business, told The Washington Post.

No time to waste: A survey published Tuesday by Main Street America points to the size of the problem the small business aid programs are trying to address. If current business conditions persist for the next two months, about 3.5 million small businesses could close permanently, the survey found. And if the recession lasts five months, roughly 7.5 million small businesses could shut their doors for good.

Coronavirus Checks Will Be Branded by Trump

The relief checks being sent to millions of Americans will have President Trump’s name on them, the Washington Post reported late Tuesday.

While most of the Economic Impact Payments, worth as much as $1,200 per adult, are being deposited electronically, the millions of people who will receive their money in the mail will see Trump’s name on the bottom left of the checks.

Trump had originally asked Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin if he could sign the checks, according to the Post’s Lisa Rein, but presidents do not have the legal authority to do so. “It is standard practice for a civil servant to sign checks issued by the Treasury Department to ensure that government payments are nonpartisan,” Rein said.

Nina Olson, who served as the National Taxpayer Advocate for 18 years, said that Trump’s move was “absolutely unprecedented.”

Treasury officials said Wednesday that, contrary to earlier reports, the effort to include the president’s name will not cause any delays in sending out the checks. “Thanks to hard work and long hours by dedicated IRS employees, these payments are going out on schedule, as planned, without delay, to the nation,” the agency said in a statement.

-->

The NFL is reportedly considering a shortened season and holding games in empty or partially filled stadiums. Man, we miss sports so much we even watched some of ESPN's HORSE tournament.



Send your tips and feedback to yrosenberg@thefiscaltimes.com. Follow us on Twitter: @yuvalrosenberg, @mdrainey and @TheFiscalTimes. And please tell your friends they can sign up here for their own copy of this newsletter.

-->

News

Views and Analysis