• mean_bean279@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    3 days ago

    That would be minimum 15% of their budget wiped out. If we force other US charities (really just 1) to stop, or “convince” them not to we could be talking about a 30% decline in revenue.

    Source

    • FaceDeer@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      In exchange, the WHO gets to make sane policies about vaccines, women’s health, and sexual identity. Could easily be worth it.

      • NOT_RICK@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        21
        ·
        3 days ago

        If you think the US is the only place where people have backwards views towards vaccines, women’s health, or trans rights I have some bad news for you

        • FaceDeer@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          It’s not the only place, but it’s particularly loud and forceful about swinging those views around internationally.

    • Nougat@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      If that means the Trump administration not having sway over WHO, it’s probably worth it.

    • friendlymessage@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      That’s roughly a billion / a, nothing other countries couldn’t compensate if necessary. I’d rather have my country foot the bill than RFK Jr. having any influence on the WHO.