This article draws on a ProPublica article, which itself uses anonymous sources throughout the piece. Much of this story is hearsay and claims that are not attributed to any individual or even any rank in the U.S. government. I need better sourcing and transparency to give more than 3 stars.

This article is based on a separate article from a politically charged website. It is based on speculation drawn from an incomplete, unsent memorandum that was never even finished. Do not waste your time reading this unfounded trash.

AFAICT, this piece mostly says, somebody in State drafted a memo that notes ways that the US benefits from our participation in WHO activities, and lays out a case for continuing as we were a few months ago. And another anonymous somebody commented about it. Hard to take issue with those claims. I'm friends with someone very close to the Dept and it seems very much like what that friend says goes on every day. They actually discuss & debate policy choices for the Chief to decide on! And some people in State actually believe the US should engage in multi-national efforts! The article also makes notes about political claims and whether Trump can unilaterally change funding. Yes, there is a dispute. AFAICT, the article makes no effort to claim what will come of this draft memo, the concern, what the USA actually does. Hard to argue with that, too.