Headline

WHO Reacts To US Withdrawal From Organisation

Published

8 months ago

January 21, 2025

The World Health Organization said Tuesday it regretted US President Donald Trump’s decision — just hours after taking power — to withdraw his country from the UN agency, saying it hoped he would “reconsider”.

Trump on Monday signed an executive order directing the United States to withdraw from the WHO, a body he has repeatedly criticized over its handling of the Covid-19 pandemic.

Speaking at the White House hours after his inauguration, Trump said the United States was paying far more to the UN body compared to China, adding: “World Health ripped us off.”

The United States, the largest donor to the Geneva-based organization, provides substantial financial support that is vital to the WHO’s operations.

The UN health agency said Tuesday it regretted the decision.

“WHO plays a crucial role in protecting the health and security of the world’s people, including Americans,” spokesman Tarik Jasarevic told reporters in Geneva.

“We hope the United States will reconsider and we look forward to engaging in constructive dialogue to maintain the partnership between the USA and WHO, for the benefit of the health and well-being of millions of people around the globe.”

The US withdrawal is expected to trigger a significant restructuring of the institution and could further disrupt global health initiatives.

This marks the second time Trump has sought to sever ties with the WHO.

During his first term, the United States issued a notice of intent to withdraw, accusing the organization of being overly influenced by China during the pandemic’s early stages.

That move was later reversed under former president Joe Biden’s administration.

Jasarevic stressed that it would take one year from formal notification for the US to leave WHO, according to the rules in place.

China promises support
In China, a foreign ministry spokesman said Beijing would continue supporting the WHO.

“The role of the WHO should only be strengthened, not weakened,” Guo Jiakun said.

“China will, as always, support the WHO in fulfilling its responsibilities… and work towards building a shared community of health for humanity.”

In his new executive order, Trump directed agencies to “pause the future transfer of any United States Government funds, support, or resources to the WHO” and to “identify credible and transparent United States and international partners to assume necessary activities previously undertaken by the WHO.”

The administration also announced plans to review and rescind Biden’s 2024 US Global Health Security Strategy, which was designed to prevent, detect, and respond to infectious disease threats, “as soon as practicable.”

Several experts expressed dismay at the withdrawal.

“We cannot make WHO more effective by walking away from it,” Tom Frieden, a former senior health official under Barack Obama, wrote on on X.

“The decision to withdraw weakens America’s influence, increases the risk of a deadly pandemic, and makes all of us less safe.”

Others warned that by withdrawing from the organization, the United States will lose privileged access to important epidemic surveillance data which could harm the capacity to monitor and prevent health threats from abroad.

“Instead of being the first to receive vaccines, we will be at the back of the line,” wrote Lawrence Gostin, professor of public health law at Georgetown University, on X.

“Withdrawal from WHO inflicts a deep wound on US security & our competitive edge in innovation.”

The timing of the US withdrawal comes amid mounting fears over the pandemic potential of the current bird flu outbreak (H5N1), which has infected dozens and claimed one life in the United States.

Meanwhile, WHO member states have been negotiating the world’s first treaty on pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response since late 2021 — negotiations now seemingly set to proceed without US participation.

AFP

Headline

Saudi Arabia’s Grand Mufti Is Dead

Published

3 hours ago

September 23, 2025

Editor

The Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, Sheikh Abdulaziz, has died at the age of 82.

According to a statement from the Royal Court, the revered cleric passed away on Tuesday morning.

Born in Mecca in November 1943, Sheikh Abdulaziz rose to become one of the most influential religious authorities in the Kingdom.

He served as head of the General Presidency of Scholarly Research and Ifta, as well as the Supreme Council of the Muslim World League.

Headline

Antitrust Trial: US Asks Court To Break Up Google’s Ad Business

Published

1 day ago

September 22, 2025

Editor

Google faces a fresh federal court test on Monday as US government lawyers ask a judge to order the breakup of the search engine giant’s ad technology business.

The lawsuit is Google’s second such test this year, following a similar government demand to split up its empire that was shot down by a judge earlier this month.

Monday’s case focuses specifically on Google’s ad tech “stack” — the tools that website publishers use to sell ads and that advertisers use to buy them.

In a landmark decision earlier this year, Federal Judge Leonie Brinkema agreed with the US Department of Justice (DOJ) that Google maintained an illegal grip on this market.

Monday’s trial is set to determine what penalties and changes Google must implement to undo its monopoly.

According to filings, the US government will argue that Google should spin off its ad publisher and exchange operations. The DOJ will also ask that after the divestitures are complete, Google be banned from operating an ad exchange for 10 years.

Google will argue that the divestiture demands go far beyond the court’s findings, are technically unfeasible, and would be harmful to the market and smaller businesses.

“We’ve said from the start that DOJ’s case misunderstands how digital advertising works and ignores how the landscape has dramatically evolved, with increasing competition and new entrants,” said Lee-Anne Mulholland, Google’s Vice President of Regulatory Affairs.

In a similar case in Europe, the European Commission, the EU’s antitrust enforcer, earlier this month fined Google 2.95 billion euros ($3.47 billion) over its control of the ad tech market.

Brussels ordered behavioral changes, drawing criticism that it was going easy on Google as it had previously indicated that a divestiture may be necessary.

This remedy phase of the US trial follows a first trial that found Google operated an illegal monopoly. It is expected to last about a week, with the court set to meet again for closing arguments a few weeks later.

The trial begins in the same month that a separate judge rejected a government demand that Google divest its Chrome browser, in an opinion that was largely seen as a victory for the tech giant.

That was part of a different case, also brought by the US Department of Justice, in which the tech giant was found responsible for operating an illegal monopoly, this time in the online search space.

Instead of a major breakup of its business, Google was required to share data with rivals as part of its remedies.

The US government had pushed for Chrome’s divestment, arguing the browser serves as a crucial gateway to the internet that brings in a third of all Google web searches.

Shares in Google-parent Alphabet have skyrocketed by more than 20 percent since that decision.

Judge Brinkema has said in pre-trial hearings that she will closely examine the outcome of the search trial when assessing her path forward in her own case.

These cases are part of a broader bipartisan government campaign against the world’s largest technology companies. The US currently has five pending antitrust cases against such companies.

AFP

Headline

Google Faces Court Battle Over Breakup Of Ad Tech Business

Published

1 day ago

September 22, 2025

Editor

Google faces a fresh federal court test on Monday as US government lawyers ask a judge to order the breakup of the search engine giant’s ad technology business.

The lawsuit is Google’s second such test this year after the California-based tech juggernaut saw a similar government demand to split up its empire shot down by a judge earlier this month.

Monday’s case focuses specifically on Google’s ad tech “stack” — the tools that website publishers use to sell ads and that advertisers use to buy them.

In a landmark decision earlier this year, Federal Judge Leonie Brinkema agreed with the US Department of Justice (DOJ) that Google maintained an illegal grip on this market.
Monday’s trial is set to determine what penalties and changes Google must implement to undo its monopoly.

Google will argue that the divestiture demands go far beyond the court’s findings, are technically unfeasible, and would be harmful to the market and smaller businesses.

In a similar case in Europe, the European Commission, the EU’s antitrust enforcer, earlier this month fined Google 2.95 billion euros ($3.47 billion) over its control of the ad tech market.
Brussels ordered behavioral changes, drawing criticism that it was going easy on Google as it had previously indicated that a divestiture may be necessary.

The trial begins in the same month that a separate judge rejected a government demand that Google divest its Chrome browser, in an opinion that was largely seen as a victory for the tech giant.

That was part of a different case, also brought by the US Department of Justice, in which the tech giant was found responsible for operating an illegal monopoly, this time in the online search space.
Instead of a major breakup of its business, Google was required to share data with rivals as part of its remedies.

The US government had pushed for Chrome’s divestment, arguing the browser serves as a crucial gateway to the internet that brings in a third of all Google web searches.
Shares in Google-parent Alphabet have skyrocketed by more than 20 percent since that decision.

Judge Brinkema has said in pre-trial hearings that she will closely examine the outcome of the search trial when assessing her path forward in her own case.

These cases are part of a broader bipartisan government campaign against the world’s largest technology companies. The US currently has five pending antitrust cases against such companies.