News
US Exit From the WHO: What America and the World Stand to Lose in Global Health Security
The U.S. officially withdrew from the WHO in January 2026, following claims of unfair funding practices and ineffective pandemic responses. This move threatens global health coordination, as the U.S. has historically been the largest funder. Experts warn of immediate impacts, including job cuts at WHO and difficulties in managing health crises like influenza.
Jordan Miller, Arizona State University
US exit from the World Health Organization marks a new era in global health policy – here’s what the US, and world, will lose
The U.S. departure from the World Health Organization became official in late January 2026, according to the Trump administration – a year after President Donald Trump signed an executive order on inauguration day of his second term declaring that he was doing so. He first stated his intention to do so during his first term in 2020, early in the COVID-19 pandemic.
The U.S. severing its ties with the WHO will cause ripple effects that linger for years to come, with widespread implications for public health. The Conversation asked Jordan Miller, a public health professor at Arizona State University, to explain what the U.S. departure means in the short and long term.
Why is the US leaving the WHO?
The Trump administration says it’s unfair that the U.S. contributes more than other nations and cites this as the main reason for leaving. The White House’s official announcement gives the example of China, which – despite having a population three times the size of the U.S. – contributes 90% less than the U.S. does to the WHO.
The Trump administration has also claimed that the WHO’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic was botched and that it lacked accountability and transparency.
The WHO has pushed back on these claims, defending its pandemic response, which recommended masking and physical distancing.
The U.S. does provide a disproportionate amount of funding to the WHO. In 2023, for example, U.S. contributions almost tripled that of the European Commission’s and were roughly 50% more than the second highest donor, Germany. But health experts point out that preventing and responding quickly to public health challenges is far less expensive than dealing with those problems once they’ve taken root and spread.
However, the withdrawal process is complicated, despite the U.S. assertion that it is final. Most countries do not have the ability to withdraw, as that is the way the original agreement to join the WHO was designed. But the U.S. inserted a clause into its agreement with the WHO when it agreed to join, stipulating that the U.S. would have the ability to withdraw, as long as it provided a one-year notice and paid all remaining dues. Though the U.S. gave its notice when Trump took office a year ago, it still owes the WHO about US$260 million in fees for 2024-25. There are complicated questions of international law that remain. https://www.youtube.com/embed/uacD-03S28E?wmode=transparent&start=0 The U.S. has been a dominant force in the WHO, and its absence will have direct and lasting impacts on health systems in the U.S. and other countries.
What does US withdrawal from the WHO mean in the short term?
In short, the U.S. withdrawal weakens public health abroad and at home. The WHO’s priorities include stopping the spread of infectious diseases, stemming antimicrobial resistance, mitigating natural disasters, providing medication and health services to those who need it, and even preventing chronic diseases. So public health challenges, such as infectious diseases, have to be approached at scale because experience shows that coordination across borders is important for success.
The U.S. has been the largest single funder of the WHO, with contributions in the hundreds of millions of dollars annually over the past decade, so its withdrawal will have immediate operational impacts, limiting the WHO’s ability to continue established programs.
As a result of losing such a significant share of its funding, the WHO announced in a recent memo to staff that it plans to cut roughly 2,300 jobs – a quarter of its workforce – by summer 2026. It also plans to downsize 10 of its divisions to four.
In addition to a long history of funding, U.S. experts have worked closely with the WHO to address public health challenges. Successes stemming from this partnership include effectively responding to several Ebola outbreaks, addressing mpox around the world and the Marburg virus outbreak in Rwanda and Ethiopia. Both the Marburg and Ebola viruses have a 50% fatality rate, on average, so containing these diseases before they reached pandemic-level spread was critically important.
The Infectious Diseases Society of America issued a statement in January 2026 describing the move as “a shortsighted and misguided abandonment of our global health commitments,” noting that “global cooperation and communication are critical to keep our own citizens protected because germs do not respect borders.”
What are the longer-term impacts of US withdrawal?
By withdrawing from the WHO, the U.S. will no longer participate in the organization’s Global Influenza Surveillance and Response System, which has been in operation since 1952. This will seriously compromise the U.S.’s ability to plan and manufacture vaccines to match the predicted flu strains for each coming year.
Annual flu vaccines for the U.S. and globally are developed a year in advance using data that is collected around the world and then analyzed by an international team of experts to predict which strains are likely to be most widespread in the next year. The WHO convenes expert panels twice per year and then makes recommendations on which flu strains to include in each year’s vaccine manufacturing formulation.
While manufacturers will likely still be able to obtain information regarding the WHO’s conclusions, the U.S. will not contribute data in the same way, and American experts will no longer have a role in the process of data analysis. This could lead to problematic differences between WHO recommendations and those coming from U.S. authorities.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that each year in the U.S. millions of people get the flu, hundreds of thousands of Americans are hospitalized and tens of thousands die as a result of influenza. Diminishing the country’s ability to prepare in advance through flu shots will likely mean more hospitalizations and more deaths as a result of the flu.
This is just one example of many of how the U.S.’s departure will affect the country’s readiness to respond to disease threats.
Additionally, the reputational damage done by the U.S. departure cannot be overstated. The U.S. has developed its position as an international leader in public health over many decades as the largest developer and implementer of global health programs.
I believe surrendering this position will diminish the United States’ ability to influence public health strategies internationally, and that is important because global health affects health in the U.S. It will also make it harder to shape a multinational response in the event of another public health crisis like the COVID-19 pandemic.
Public health and policy experts predict that China will use this opportunity to strengthen its position and its global influence, stepping into the power vacuum the U.S. creates by withdrawing. China has pledged an additional US$500 million in support of the WHO over the next five years.
As a member of the WHO, the United States has had ready access to a vast amount of data collected by the WHO and its members. While most data the WHO obtains is ultimately made available to the public, member nations have greater access to detailed information about collection methods and gain access sooner, as new threats are emerging.
Delays in access to data could hamstring the country’s ability to respond in the event of the next infectious disease outbreak.
Could the US return under a new president?
In short, yes. The WHO has clearly signaled its desire to continue to engage with the U.S., saying it “regrets the U.S. decision to withdraw” and hopes the U.S. will reconsider its decision to leave.
In the meantime, individual states have the opportunity to participate. In late January, California announced it will join the WHO’s Global Outbreak Alert & Response Network, which is open to a broader array of participants than just WHO member nations. California was also a founding member of the West Coast Health Alliance, which now includes 14 U.S. states that have agreed to work together to address public health challenges.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom has also launched an initiative designed to improve public health infrastructure and build trust. He enlisted national public health leaders for this effort, including former Centers for Disease Control and Prevention leaders Susan Monarez and Deb Houry, as well as Katelyn Jetelina, who became well known as Your Local Epidemiologist during the COVID-19 pandemic.
I think we will continue to see innovative efforts like these emerging, as political and public health leaders work to fill the vacuum being created by the Trump administration’s disinvestment in public health.
Jordan Miller, Teaching Professor of Public Health, Arizona State University
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
STM Daily News is a vibrant news blog dedicated to sharing the brighter side of human experiences. Emphasizing positive, uplifting stories, the site focuses on delivering inspiring, informative, and well-researched content. With a commitment to accurate, fair, and responsible journalism, STM Daily News aims to foster a community of readers passionate about positive change and engaged in meaningful conversations. Join the movement and explore stories that celebrate the positive impacts shaping our world.
Discover more from Daily News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The Knowledge
How to avoid seeing disturbing video on social media and protect your peace of mind
How to avoid seeing disturbing video on social media and protect your peace of mind
Last Updated on February 4, 2026 by Daily News Staff
Annie Margaret, University of Colorado Boulder
How to avoid seeing disturbing video on social media and protect your peace of mind
When graphic videos like those of the recent shooting of a protester by federal agents in Minneapolis go viral, it can feel impossible to protect yourself from seeing things you did not consent to see. But there are steps you can take.
Social media platforms are designed to maximize engagement, not protect your peace of mind. The major platforms have also reduced their content moderation efforts over the past year or so. That means upsetting content can reach you even when you never chose to watch it.
You do not have to watch every piece of content that crosses your screen, however. Protecting your own mental state is not avoidance or denial. As a researcher who studies ways to counteract the negative effects of social media on mental health and well-being, I believe it’s a way of safeguarding the bandwidth you need to stay engaged, compassionate and effective.
Why this matters
Research shows that repeated exposure to violent or disturbing media can increase stress, heighten anxiety and contribute to feelings of helplessness. These effects are not just short-term. Over time, they erode the emotional resources you rely on to care for yourself and others.
Protecting your attention is a form of care. Liberating your attention from harmful content is not withdrawal. It is reclaiming your most powerful creative force: your consciousness.
Just as with food, not everything on the table is meant to be eaten. You wouldn’t eat something spoiled or toxic simply because it was served to you. In the same way, not every piece of media laid out in your feed deserves your attention. Choosing what to consume is a matter of health.
And while you can choose what you keep in your own kitchen cabinets, you often have less control over what shows up in your feeds. That is why it helps to take intentional steps to filter, block and set boundaries.
Practical steps you can take
Fortunately, there are straightforward ways to reduce your chances of being confronted with violent or disturbing videos. Here are four that I recommend:
- Turn off autoplay or limit sensitive content. Note that these settings can vary depending on device, operating system and app version, and can change.
https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/d1deR/2
- Use keyword filters. Most platforms allow you to mute or block specific words, phrases or hashtags. This reduces the chance that graphic or violent content slips into your feed.
- Curate your feed. Unfollow accounts that regularly share disturbing images. Follow accounts that bring you knowledge, connection or joy instead.
- Set boundaries. Reserve phone-free time during meals or before bed. Research shows that intentional breaks reduce stress and improve well-being.
Reclaim your agency
Social media is not neutral. Its algorithms are engineered to hold your attention, even when that means amplifying harmful or sensational material. Watching passively only serves the interests of the social media companies. Choosing to protect your attention is a way to reclaim your agency.
The urge to follow along in real time can be strong, especially during crises. But choosing not to watch every disturbing image is not neglect; it is self-preservation. Looking away protects your ability to act with purpose. When your attention is hijacked, your energy goes into shock and outrage. When your attention is steady, you can choose where to invest it.
You are not powerless. Every boundary you set – whether it is turning off autoplay, filtering content or curating your feed – is a way of taking control over what enters your mind. These actions are the foundation for being able to connect with others, help people and work for meaningful change.
More resources
I’m the executive director of the Post-Internet Project, a nonprofit dedicated to helping people navigate the psychological and social challenges of life online. With my team, I designed the evidence-backed PRISM intervention to help people manage their social media use.
Our research-based program emphasizes agency, intention and values alignment as the keys to developing healthier patterns of media consumption. You can try the PRISM process for yourself with an online class I launched through Coursera in October 2025. You can find the course, Values Aligned Media Consumption, on Coursera. The course is aimed at anyone 18 and over, and the videos are free to watch.
This story was updated on Jan. 25, 2026 to include reference to the recent shooting in Minneapolis.
Annie Margaret, Teaching Assistant Professor of Creative Technology & Design, ATLAS Institute, University of Colorado Boulder
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Discover more from Daily News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
News
Broncos ‘Private’ Stadium Plan: How Tax Breaks and Infrastructure Can Still Cost the Public Millions
Broncos ‘Private’ Stadium Plan: In September 2025, the Denver Broncos announced plans for a new privately financed stadium. However, scrutiny arises as public funds often subsidize these projects, obscuring true financing sources. This raises concerns about the long-term financial impact on taxpayers, who may shoulder broader costs beyond construction, including infrastructure and social ramifications.
Geoffrey Propheter, University of Colorado Denver
Broncos say their new stadium will be ‘privately financed,’ but ‘private’ often still means hundreds of millions in public resources
The Denver Broncos announced in early September 2025 their plan to build a privately financed football stadium. The proposal received a lot of attention and praise.
Across the five major sports leagues in the U.S. – the NBA, NHL, NFL, MLB and MLS – only 20% of facilities are privately owned.
I’ve studied the intersection of state and local public finance and pro sports for two decades. This experience has led me to approach claims of private financing with suspicion.
Private dollars are often masked as public dollars in these arrangements. https://www.youtube.com/embed/zwv34Lpo0ec?wmode=transparent&start=0 A Fox31 Denver news report aired in November 2025 about the Broncos’ plans for a new stadium.
Private vs public dollars
In theory, what counts as private or public dollars is uncontroversial. Dollars are public when government has a legal claim over them – otherwise, they are private.
The public versus private dollar distinction matters when accounting for who is contributing how much to a sports facility. When public dollars are allowed to count as private dollars, a project proposal looks more enticing than it is, in fact.
For instance, lawmakers regularly allow team owners to count public dollars as private dollars. The Sacramento City Council agreed to let the NBA’s Sacramento Kings count their property tax payments for the city-owned arena as private contributions to the overall cost of financing the arena. But property taxes are public dollars that in other instances go toward public services like schools and road repairs.
Team owners building private facilities also typically receive public dollars through tax breaks, which is government spending in disguise. Property tax exemptions, sales and use tax exemptions on materials and machinery, and income tax credits are common forms of government givebacks to sports team owners.
I’ve estimated that property tax exemptions alone, among facilities in the five major leagues, have cost state and local governments US$20 billion cumulatively over the life of teams’ leases, 42% of which would have gone to K-12 education.
Rental payments spent on facilities are not private dollars
Many facilities and their infrastructure are funded through public debt secured in part by team rental payments. Lawmakers, media and consultants often view projects secured by rents as privately financed, in part or whole.
However, rental income in exchange for use or operation of public property should not be counted as private dollars.
Here’s a thought experiment. Suppose state lawmakers allocated the rent paid for use of campground sites in a state park to pay for new campground bathrooms. Are the bathrooms privately funded?
The flaw in concluding “yes” arises from a failure to appreciate that lawmakers, through policy, create legal claims over certain dollars. All dollars start as private dollars, but through the tax system, lawmakers transfer ownership of some dollars to the public.
It is the government landlord’s choice, a policy decision, to spend the rental income on the rented property, a choice available to them only if they own the rental income in the first place.
Yet lawmakers regularly allow teams, both professional and minor league, to count rental payments as private contributions. This accounting makes sports subsidies look less generous than they actually are.
Looking beyond construction
Facilities not only need to be constructed but also operated, maintained and eventually upgraded. Roads, sewer lines, overpasses, game-day security and emergency response and public policies to mitigate gentrification caused by a facility are all common taxpayer-funded touchpoints. In addition, facilities have preconstruction costs such as land acquisition, soil remediation and site preparation, as well as later costs such as demolition and remediation for the land’s next use.
Focusing on privately financed construction and ignoring all other aspects of a project’s development and operation is misleading, potentially contributing to lawmakers making inefficient and expensive policy decisions.
By way of example, the Council of the District of Columbia approved a subsidy agreement last year with the NFL’s Commanders. The stadium would be financed, constructed and operated by the team owner, who would pay $1 in rent per year and remit no property taxes. In exchange for financing the stadium privately, the owner receives exclusive development rights to 20 acres of land adjacent to the stadium for the next 90 years.
The stadium is expected to cost the owner $2.5 billion, with the city contributing $1.3 billion for infrastructure.
But the city also gives up market rental income between $6 billion and $25 billion,depending on future land appreciation rates, that it could make on the 20 acres.
In other words, the rent discount alone means the city gives up revenue equal to multiple stadiums in exchange for the Commanders providing one. It is as if the council has a Lamborghini, traded it straight up for a Honda Civic, and then praised themselves for their negotiation acumen that resulted in a “free” Civic.
The Broncos’ proposed stadium
As of January 2026, Denver taxpayers know only that the Broncos stadium construction will be privately financed and that public dollars will be spent on some infrastructure.
Being enamored with such a proposal is similar to being offered a $1 billion yacht at a 75% discount. In my experience, there are two types of public officials: one will want to spend $250 million to save $750 million, while the other will ask whether $250 million for a yacht is an appropriate use of taxpayer resources given existing needs elsewhere.
My hope is that lawmakers better appreciate the many ways government participation in sports facility development, including privately financed ones, imposes serious risks and costs for current and future taxpayers. What is the expected total cost of the stadium project over its life? How much of the life cost would public resources cover? Could public resources generate greater benefits in an alternative use? How much will it cost to mitigate or compensate those affected by a project’s expected negative side effects, such as gentrification, congestion, pollution and crime?
Read more of our stories about Colorado.
Geoffrey Propheter, Associate Professor, School of Public Affairs, University of Colorado Denver
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Discover more from Daily News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
News
CES 2026: The Exhibitors and Moments That Stood Out for Entertainment + Tech Fans
CES 2026 delivered big entertainment-tech moments—from Sony Honda’s AFEELA to streaming, smart glasses, AI PCs, and robots that stole the show.
Last Updated on February 2, 2026 by Daily News Staff
CES 2026 (Jan. 6–9 in Las Vegas) didn’t feel like a “future tech” show as much as a “right now” show. The big shift: AI wasn’t treated like a standalone product category anymore. It was the invisible layer powering everything from streaming discovery to robots that can actually do work.
For STM Daily News readers who live in the overlap of Entertainment and Tech, here are the exhibitors and trends that stood out most—plus why they matter beyond the show floor.
1) Sony Honda Mobility (AFEELA): The car as a rolling entertainment platform
Sony Honda Mobility’s AFEELA presence reinforced a direction CES keeps leaning into: the next generation of vehicles is competing as much on software and in-cabin experience as it is on horsepower.
What made it stand out:
- AFEELA represents the “car as a connected device” idea taken seriously—where the cabin becomes a screen-first, service-driven environment.
- It’s a clean example of how mobility and entertainment are merging: navigation, safety, personalization, and media all living in one interface.
2) Netflix + Amazon Prime Video + Roku + Xumo: Streaming is evolving into ecosystems
CES 2026’s Content & Entertainment story wasn’t about “who has the most subscribers.” It was about streaming as an ecosystem: bundling, ad-supported growth, and smarter discovery.
What made it stand out:
- CES highlighted how streaming platforms are pushing beyond simple libraries into bundles, premium originals, and integrated experiences.
- FAST (free ad-supported streaming TV) continues to gain traction, and device/platform players are positioning themselves as the front door.
3) Dolby: The quiet power behind the best-looking, best-sounding experiences
Dolby isn’t always the flashiest booth, but it consistently shows up as the tech that makes everything else feel “premium.”
What made it stand out:
- In a year where screens, XR, and immersive venues are everywhere, audio and imaging standards are the difference between “cool demo” and “wow.”
- Dolby’s relevance keeps growing as entertainment moves across phones, living rooms, cars, and wearables.
4) Meta + XREAL: Smart glasses keep inching toward mainstream
Wearables at CES 2026 weren’t just about steps and sleep. The momentum was in smart glasses and AR—especially as generative AI voice interfaces make hands-free use feel more natural.
What made it stand out:
- CES noted smart/AR glasses evolving with features like real-time translation, recording, and AI voice interfaces.
- For entertainment fans, this is where “watching” and “doing” start to blend—live overlays, creator tools, and new ways to capture experiences.
5) Samsung + LG + TCL: Screens are still the show’s main stage
Even in an AI-everywhere year, CES still belongs to display tech. Big brands kept proving that TVs aren’t just TVs—they’re hubs for gaming, streaming, smart home control, and ambient experiences.
What made it stand out:
- Display leaders continue to set the tone for how entertainment is consumed at home.
- The conversation is shifting from specs to experience: personalization, AI-powered recommendations, and multi-device continuity.
6) NVIDIA + AMD + Lenovo: The “AI PC” era is no longer theoretical
CES 2026 made it clear that the next wave of consumer computing is built around on-device AI. That matters for creators, editors, and anyone who lives in content.
What made it stand out:
- CES highlighted AI’s move from “digital transformation” to “intelligent transformation,” including edge/enterprise and physical AI in robotics.
- AMD’s CES keynote emphasized AI across devices from PCs to data centers, underscoring how quickly this is becoming standard.
7) Unitree + Richtech Robotics + Hyundai: Robots were the surprise crowd-pleaser
If CES 2026 had a “you had to see it” category, it was robotics. Not just novelty bots—machines built for real environments.
What made it stand out:
- CES framed robotics as “physical AI,” where generative AI and simulation training help robots learn faster than traditional programming.
- Humanoid robots, in particular, are moving from single-task demos toward more collaborative assistant roles.
The big takeaway for STM Daily News readers
CES 2026 wasn’t about one killer gadget. It was about convergence:
- Entertainment is becoming more interactive, more personalized, and more portable.
- Cars are becoming screens.
- Wearables are becoming interfaces.
- Robots are becoming the next “device category” people actually want to watch.
And underneath it all: AI is becoming less of a headline and more of the operating system for modern life.
Here’s a list of what stood out to us at CES 2026:
- Sony Honda Mobility (AFEELA): The car as a rolling entertainment platform
- Netflix + Amazon Prime Video + Roku + Xumo: Streaming is evolving into ecosystems
- Dolby: The quiet power behind the best-looking, best-sounding experiences
- Meta + XREAL: Smart glasses keep inching toward mainstream
- Samsung + LG + TCL: Screens are still the show’s main stage
- NVIDIA + AMD + Lenovo: The “AI PC” era is no longer theoretical
- Unitree + Richtech Robotics + Hyundai: Robots were the surprise crowd-pleaser
Sources
- CES press release recap and exhibitor/topic highlights (Jan. 9, 2026): https://www.ces.tech/press-releases/ces-2026-the-future-is-here
Dive into “The Knowledge,” where curiosity meets clarity. This playlist, in collaboration with STMDailyNews.com, is designed for viewers who value historical accuracy and insightful learning. Our short videos, ranging from 30 seconds to a minute and a half, make complex subjects easy to grasp in no time. Covering everything from historical events to contemporary processes and entertainment, “The Knowledge” bridges the past with the present. In a world where information is abundant yet often misused, our series aims to guide you through the noise, preserving vital knowledge and truths that shape our lives today. Perfect for curious minds eager to discover the ‘why’ and ‘how’ of everything around us. Subscribe and join in as we explore the facts that matter. https://stmdailynews.com/the-knowledge/
Author
Discover more from Daily News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
