A new proposal circulating among former health officials and advisors to Donald Trump suggests a radical departure from the current international health infrastructure. The plan outlines the creation of a sophisticated global health monitoring organization designed specifically to bypass the World Health Organization. While the move aligns with the former president’s long-standing skepticism toward international bodies, the projected costs of standing up a parallel entity have raised alarms among fiscal conservatives and public health experts alike.
During his first term, Trump frequently criticized the World Health Organization for its handling of the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, eventually moving to withdraw the United States from the body entirely. Although the Biden administration reversed that decision, those poised to lead a potential second Trump term are drafting blueprints for a permanent American-led alternative. This new entity would prioritize American security interests and require a significant financial commitment from the federal budget to replicate the surveillance networks already established by the United Nations affiliate.
The proposed replacement is not merely a diplomatic shift but a massive logistical undertaking. According to preliminary documents, the new organization would require the United States to fund independent laboratories, data collection centers, and a global network of health attaches. Critics argue that this would result in a redundant system that costs taxpayers billions more than the current membership dues paid to the WHO. Proponents, however, contend that the current system is too influenced by foreign adversaries and that a premium price is worth paying for American sovereignty and data integrity.
Financial analysts point out that the World Health Organization operates on a budget supported by dozens of member states, spreading the financial burden of global disease tracking across the international community. By creating a bespoke alternative, the United States would likely shoulder the vast majority of the operating costs alone. This has created a rift among policy thinkers who generally support the America First agenda but remain wary of the massive expansion of the federal bureaucracy required to manage such a global health apparatus.
Beyond the financial implications, the proposal suggests a fundamental change in how the United States interacts with global science. The new plan emphasizes bilateral agreements over multilateral cooperation, allowing the U.S. to choose which nations it shares critical health data with. This selective approach is designed to prevent the leakage of sensitive research while ensuring that American officials have direct oversight of health threats emerging overseas. However, public health veterans warn that pathogens do not respect national borders and that a fragmented global response could leave the United States more vulnerable during the next pandemic.
As the political landscape shifts toward the next election cycle, the debate over this proposed replacement is likely to intensify. The tension between fiscal restraint and the desire for institutional independence remains the central conflict of the plan. If enacted, this policy would represent one of the most significant shifts in American foreign policy in decades, effectively ending nearly a century of unified global health cooperation in favor of a more expensive, federally controlled alternative.
