Today, the international community is understandably stung by President Trump’s current move of defunding the WHO at a time when the UN’s top organization is facing a mammoth challenge to curb the Coronavirus. At a critical juncture of Coronavirus crisis, President Trump halted funding to the World Health Organization, while his administration investigates what he called the health body’s severe mismanagement of its coronavirus response. Trump has accused the United Nations agency of failing in its basic duty by covering up the spread of the virus after it emerged in China and acting too slowly and in Beijing’s favour. “We have deep concerns about whether America’s generosity has been put to the best use possible,” Trump said in a Rose Garden news conference. Yet, whatever the grievances President Trump may have vis-à-vis the WHO, his move is tantamount to a fascist measure, and hence the growing global criticism and disappointment against it. The EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell said, ‘the 27-nation bloc deeply regrets the suspension of funds and added that the U.N. health agency is now “needed more than ever” to combat the pandemic”. U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres responded to Trump’s announcement by saying now is not the time to end support for the World Health Organization, calling the WHO “absolutely critical” to the global effort to combat COVID-19, the disease caused by the coronavirus. Guterres said that it is possible that different entities read the facts differently but that the appropriate time for a review is “once we have finally turned the page on this pandemic.” The American Medical Association immediately called on Trump to reconsider his decision. “During the worst public health crisis in a century, halting funding to the World Health Organization is a dangerous step in the wrong direction that will not make defeating COVID-19 easier,” AMA President Patrice A. Harris said in a statement. The US contributed nearly $900 million to the WHO´s budget for 2018-19, according to information on the agency´s website. That almost represents one-fifth of its total $4.4 billion budget for those years. The US gave nearly three-fourths of the funds in specified voluntary contributions and the rest in assessed funding as part of Washington´s commitment to UN institutions. A more lucid WHO budget document provided by the US mission in Geneva showed that in 2019, the United States had provided $452 million, including nearly $119 million in assessed funding. In its most recent budget proposal from February, the Trump administration called for slashing the US assessed funding contribution to the WHO to $57.9 million. Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., ranking member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, have criticized Trump’s decision, saying, “Withholding funding for WHO in the midst of the worst pandemic in a century makes as much sense as cutting off ammunition to an ally as the enemy closes in.” Leahy accused Trump of “not wanting to take responsibility as the deaths continue to mount” and added that while the “WHO should have been stricter with China and called for travel restrictions earlier … it is performing essential functions and needs our strong support.” Ronald Waldman, a public health professor at George Washington University who previously worked at the WHO, said the body was of “vital importance” to most countries and “should not be held responsible for the course of the pandemic in the US”. “The US citizenry may not immediately suffer from a decision to withdraw funding from the organisation, but many people around the world who depend on WHO programmes to develop and guide policies that protect their health and the health of their children will,” he added. The legality of Trump’s move lies in the question. ”President Trump’s move to temporarily suspend U.S. payments to the World Health organization is not legal,” according to a top aide for Democrats Meanwhile, the WHO chief gave a strident defence of his agency’s handling of the coronavirus pandemic, in response to U.S. President Donald Trump’s criticism and suggestions that Washington could review its funding for the agency. WHO Director General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus called for unity and a halt to the politicization of the global health crisis, specifically urging China and the United States to show “honest leadership”. Tedros said he expected U.S. funding to continue with traditional bipartisan support. Tedros further said, ”Beijing and Washington should follow the example of what the former Soviet Union and the United States did in 1967 when they launched a 10-year global campaign that eradicated smallpox, a disease then killing 2 million people annually”. Agreeably, a national leadership’s true character is rightly exposed in the time of crisis. While juxtaposing Trump’s leadership response with the past US presidents, we note America’s greatest war leaders did not just declare themselves as such. Presidents Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt instinctively understood how to conjure national response in dark times. They toiled deep knowledge of American history, literature and national mythology to give a betting response/ definition to contemporary challenges/battles as they could have inspired Americans to confront danger and empathize over savage sacrifices. Both Lincoln and Roosevelt seemed to have had extraordinary involvement in the details of their wars and were astute tacticians. Roosevelt orchestrated immense control over the military minds waging the US war effort via massive worldwide deployment of American armed forces overseas. Yet comparatively, a likely Trump’s image will surely be the President–making assumptions of a warlike mantle– while trying to shape his reelection race that will unfold amidst the ongoing coronavirus emergency. Nonetheless, it is yet not clear exactly what mechanism Trump proposes to use to withhold WHO funding, much of which is appropriated by Congress. Given a look into the US Constitution, the president typically does not have the authority to unilaterally redirect congressional funding. Probably, one workable option could be for Trump to use powers granted to the president under the Impoundment Control Act of 1974. Under this statute, the president may propose to withhold congressional funds, but it requires congressional approval within 45 days. While in absence of this approval, the funds must be returned to their original, congressionally mandated purpose after 45 days. The legality of Trump’s move lies in the question. ”President Trump’s move to temporarily suspend U.S. payments to the World Health organization is not legal,” according to a top aide for Democrats. The Trump administration has refuted the allegations, saying they have had wide latitude in how they allocate congressionally-authorized spending. But the president does not have the unilateral authority to withhold the U.S. contribution to the WHO, said Evan Hollander, a spokesman for Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Nita Lowey, New York Democrat. The fact speaks that the WHO gets the support of its international members to perform the ascribed tasks -since the Organisation has no authority over any territory, it cannot go anywhere unwelcomed, and it totally relies on funding systematically imparted by its members. Therefore, Trump’s move of suspending the US aid for the WHO sets no positive precedent and hence, it must be revocable. The writer is an independent ‘IR’ researcher and international law analyst based in Pakistan