House Republicans led by Wisconsin Rep. Tom Tiffany demanded in a letter that President Joe Biden withdraw from the World Health Organization (WHO) as former President Donald Trump had intended to do, citing a lack of reforms to the organization and allegiance to Communist and authoritarian regimes.
Tiffany also demanded documents detailing communication between the administration and WHO and the International Health Regulations (IHR), which is a new body that Republicans fear will interfere with American sovereignty on health matters.
The Republicans pointed out that China is a member of WHO but Taiwan is not, and also noted that Russia is a member.
Tiffany also had problems with the fact that WHO was not accountable to anyone.
“The WHO is a corrupt, wholly-owned subsidiary of Communist China,” Tiffany told the Daily Caller, which obtained a copy of the letter.
“Giving this unaccountable bureaucracy even more power after the incompetence of the last two years is like hiring the arsonist who started the fire to help you put it out.”
RSC National Security & Foreign Affairs Task Force Chairman Joe Wilson and RSC Budget and Spending Task Force Chairman Kevin Hern were also parties to the letter.
The letter also comes as Biden said recently that he wanted to defer to WHO for policies to govern future pandemics.
Problems with WHO
During the recent COVID-19 pandemic, WHO advocated stringent lockdown policies and refused to condemn China amid reports that the Communist regime even barricaded COVID-positive people into their homes to quarantine them.
WHO has also refused to admit that it was likely the virus escaped or came from a Chinese lab in Wuhan, where the virus originated.
Former President Donald Trump eventually grew frustrated with WHO and decided to withdraw from the organization because of its allegiances to China and Russia.
Why should we give away our sovereignty to an organization that obviously doesn’t have our best interests at heart and has gotten fundamental facts about health situations wrong, as well as refusing to consider the impact of lockdowns on those who are not sick?