By Douglas V. Gibbs
The Trump administration has withdrawn the United States from the World Health Organization (WHO), a specialized agency and intergovernmental body of the United Nations which can issue guidance and declare international health emergencies, but has no enforcement power. The U.S. withdrawal in January of 2026 marked the first time a major founding member has withdrawn from the organization.
California Governor Gavin Newsom announced that the State of California will remain a part of the World Health Organization’s network. He made the announcement after meeting with WHO Director-General Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland on January 23, 2026. California is the only U.S. state to join the WHO-coordinated network, and has been widely interpreted as a direct counter to President Trump’s withdrawal of the U.S. from WHO. Politico and other outlets states Newsom used Davos as an opportunity to position California as a global health actor independent of federal policy.
Newsom’s action violated Article I, Section 10 of the United States Constitution which prohibits states from any “agreement or compact” with any “foreign power.” The Framers of the Constitution wrote it the way they did because they had just lived through the chaos of states conducting their own diplomacy under the Articles of Confederation, and they wanted to prevent the states from engaging in separate foreign policies.
The agreement by Gavin Newsom with WHO is not symbolic. It is a formal partnership with a foreign international body involving coordinated operations, information sharing, and joint response mechanisms. That is the very essence of an “agreement or compact.” The Supreme Court has long held that a “compact” exists when a state enters into a relationship that “enhances its political power” or “binds it to obligations” with another sovereign entity. California’s move to join WHO’s Global Outbreak Alert & Response Network (GOARN) does both.
While defenders argue that California’s move is justified by federal inaction, the Constitution is clear. The Constitution does not say, “No State shall enter into agreements with foreign powers… unless the federal government isn’t doing what the State wants.” The clause is clear and definitive. “No State Shall.” States don’t get to conduct foreign policy because they disagree with Washington. That’s exactly the scenario the Framers were trying to prevent.
While in some cases an agreement can be constitutional if, as stated in the Constitution, Congress authorizes California to join GOARN, Newsom acted unilaterally without any congressional approval. Without a congressional blessing, the action is unconstitutional on its face.
The broader constitutional problem is that California is attempting to act as a mini-nation, positioning itself as a quasi-sovereign actor on the world stage. While state sovereignty regarding state issues was important to the Founders, and they wished to preserve that internal autonomy, they also desired that the United States would be a perpetual union so they designed the Constitution to prevent that kind of fragmentation. This is not to say that states were considered to be locked into the Union. It was always considered a voluntary union with the states retaining the authority to secede if they so desired. But the Founding Fathers preferred that the Union held together, and that the federal government handled all external issues for the country, so they designed the Constitution to enable states to maintain their own internal affairs, but to not allow the states to run their own foreign affairs.
Newsom’s decision is more than a symbolic gesture of defiance. It is a blueprint for constitutional disorder. If one governor can strike agreements with foreign powers because he dislikes federal policy, then every governor can. If states decide to act unilaterally on issues like immigration, trade, defense, and relationships with foreign entities then each could ultimately splinter into fifty competing foreign agendas. That is not federalism. That is disunion. The Constitution draws a bright line for a reason, and California has crossed it. If this precedent stands, the question will not be whether other states follow, but how long the United States can remain a united republic at all.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Just my opinion, but if Newsom wants California to join WHO perhaps he should have California secede from the Union first. Then that “pesky” document, the Constitution, won’t be in his way. but then all federal money should be stopped going to the “country” of California.
I would hope if this was brought before SCOTUS it would result in bad news for Newsom, that his actions would be declared unconstitutional. And thus illegal?? But I would figure a lot of left leaning judges would say a negative ruling by SCOTUS against Newsom was what is unconstitutional and issue a ruling favorable to California.