Pulling the U.S. out of the WHO and the death of the global order - Opinion
Trump — a danger to the global order
Yuval Noah Harari, personal assistant to Klaus Schwab, had warned that a Trump re-election could deliver a "death blow" to the global order.
I think [his re-election is] very likely, and if it happens it is likely to be the kind of death blow to what remains of the global order. And he says it openly. Now again it should be clear that many of these politicians, they present a false dichotomy, a false binary vision of the world, as if you have to choose between patriotism and globalism, between being loyal to your nation and being loyal to some kind of, I don’t know, global government or whatever.”
The Vigilant Fox, in part two of a three-part tweet, posted these comments by Harari, noting that it appears the globalists realize their time is up.
However, Harari seems to now acknowledge that globalist viewpoints, including his own, are becoming increasingly unpopular. When asked the question, “Are you concerned that Trump might be elected again shortly?”, Harari responded, “I think it's very likely.”
Harari suggests that the world order is already crumbling. But is he right to argue that Trump’s re-election would deliver the final “death blow” to what remains? And is it true that nationalism is incompatible with participation in global entities? If the current global order does collapse, what might be the consequences?
China’s Influence on the WHO
One focal point of the tension between globalism and national sovereignty is the WHO. Before the end of his previous term, Trump had begun the process of pulling the U.S. out of the international organization, accusing it of being a puppet of China and failing to act transparently during the early days of the COVID pandemic. Now, as president-elect, Trump has again announced his plan to withdraw the U.S. from the agency (a video clip of his speech on the subject can be seen below in the section headed "The Pandemic Treaty") stating:
The World Health Organization has become nothing more than a corrupt globalist scam paid for by the United States but owned and controlled by China. When the China virus reached our shores 3 years ago, the World Health Organization disgracefully covered the tracks of the Chinese Communist Party every single step of the way. For this reason, it is my great honor to terminate America's relationship with the World Health Organization.
Trump also made clear his intentions to forge a new coalition that will act to replace the WHO but will not seek to usurp the role of national governments.
The United States will withdraw from the corrupt World Health Organization which, in light of its tremendous failure on COVID . . . deserves to be completely abolished and replaced. Then I will work to forge a new coalition of Nations that are strongly committed to protecting health while also upholding sovereignty and freedom.
China's influence on the WHO was calculated
The WHO's kowtowing to China should come as no surprise, given China's significant influence over WHO leadership. Both current Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus and his predecessor, Margaret Chan, were heavily supported by China during their campaigns for the role. In fact, Margaret Chan’s tenure as leader of the WHO marked a pivotal moment for China in its quest for global influence.
Never before had a Chinese person led a major United Nations organization. Two years before Beijing would play host to the Olympics, the top seat at the WHO was a prize for a country seeking influence at the pinnacles of the global establishment.
Beijing’s sway over the organization grew during Chan's leadership and was further cemented with Tedros’s election. As Trump emphasized, China’s influence was evident in the WHO’s handling of the early COVID outbreak, particularly in its efforts to downplay China’s role in the pandemic.
The Pandemic Treaty
The draft Pandemic Treaty proposal, which would grant the WHO sweeping authority over global health policies, exemplifies the potential dangers of such influence. Trump made it clear in his speech that he would not allow the U.S. to be a party to that.
The draft treaty would require the United States to send vast quantities of medical supplies to other countries in the event of another pandemic and it would push aggressive censorship of free speech on issues of public health just like they censored the truth about the Wuhan lab which I said, "That’s where it came from." Remember? Under the next Trump administration that treaty will be immediately terminated. I would not allow public health to be used as a pretext to advance the march of global government. That's what they're doing. Globalists.
The proposed pandemic treaty would grant Tedros unilateral power to declare “public health emergencies of international concern” on his say-so alone. Opponents of the treaty argue it would undermine First Amendment protections and enable the WHO to impose lockdowns, vaccine mandates, and other measures at its discretion. This concern was highlighted in a discussion between evolutionary biologist Bret Weinstein and Tucker Carlson, who warned of the treaty’s potential to erode democratic freedoms.
According to Trump, nationalism does not preclude being a partner with others in a global entity. What he will not allow is an unelected hegemony to rule the U.S.
Tariffs
Beyond the WHO, Trump’s broader economic policies—such as imposing tariffs on foreign goods — represent another way to prevent outside influences from undermining the U.S. economy. These tariffs are designed to reclaim economic sovereignty and address longstanding trade imbalances which have undermined American industries. Trump has also expressed his intention to impose tariffs on Canadian and Mexican goods if those countries fail to curb migration and drug trafficking at their borders.
The NY Post views Trump’s planned tariffs as a way of promoting fairer trade and opening up markets. Authors Richard Stern and Andrew Hale explain that economic gains should be merit-based, not a function of government favoritism. They highlight how trade partner governments often promote their own agendas rather than fair competition, citing China as a prime example.
China routinely violates American patents and other intellectual property, for example. Foreign countries often restrict US companies’ access to foreign markets entirely, or use tariffs and subsidies to funnel investments and jobs out of the United States.
Stern and Hale also point to Trump’s successful use of tariffs during his first term to support domestic industries.
The Trump administration successfully used the threat of tariffs to suppress European efforts to push carbon and digital-services taxes aimed at US industries.
His administration used similar threats to open markets in Asia to US exports. During the Trump administration’s first three years, before the COVID pandemic, US goods exports to Japan and South Korea increased by roughly 14% and 27% respectively.
They further explain that strategic use of tariffs would help correct tax imbalances between the U.S. and other industrialized countries, boosting domestic industry and attracting investment.
Ultimately, tariffs are not just about protecting the U.S. economy. As Stern and Hale note, they can also “help break up foreign cabals and create a level global economic playing field.” This approach would create good jobs at home while fostering fairer competition that benefits other nations also negatively affected by unfair trade practices.
A new global paradigm?
If Trump’s policies contribute the "death blow" to the global order that Harari fears, it may result in a system that prioritizes sovereignty, accountability, and ethical trade. By challenging global norms — leaving the WHO and imposing tariffs — Trump’s actions could pave the way for a more balanced and ethical world order.
Ultimately, however, as The Vigilant Fox noted (above), Trump’s re-election represents a broader movement against the existing globalist framework. Brandon Smith, writing for Alt-Market, echoed this sentiment, emphasizing that the movement transcends Trump himself:
The thing is, Trump is just a reflection of a larger movement against the globalist regime. Getting rid of Trump [by assassination] would change nothing. In fact, getting rid of Trump might make the populace commit to full bore revolution even faster. And, if it ultimately turns out that Trump doesn’t benefit the cause of freedom from the elites, that same revolution will eventually happen without him.
This perspective underscores that the movement against globalism is not dependent on any one individual but reflects society's deeper shift toward sovereignty and self-determination—a shift that Harari himself seems to recognize, however reluctantly, as inevitable. Trump may be the point man, but he is not alone.
Related articles:
- WHO no longer needs a pandemic to declare one
- Deadly pandemics are rare, so why is the WHO obsessed with them?
- Your personal freedoms are dangerous — to the WHO
- The Constitution's last stand?
- Don’t just reject the Pandemic Treaty – Get US Out! Of the WHO
- Emergency response or planned takeover? WHO Pandemic Treaty
- Globalists consider Trump and populism the main obstacles to a collectivist world order
- WHO vs First Amendment; White House to decide by May on ceding authority to global body
- Beholden to China . . . WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus - Part 3
- Beholden to China . . . WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus - Part 2
- Beholden to China . . . WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus - Part 1
- Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus - what's lurking behind that genial smile?
