Compensatory Federalism: How California is Rewriting the Rules of Diplomacy for Global Health

I. Introduction: The Davos Divergence on Global Health

On January 23, 2026, the architecture of international health governance underwent a seismic structural fracture, realized not on the battlefields of conventional warfare, but in the sterile, high-altitude conference rooms of Davos, Switzerland, and the bureaucratic corridors of Washington, D.C. In a synchronized display of diverging foreign policies that underscored the profound polarization of the American polity, the State of California and the United States federal government moved in diametrically opposite directions regarding their engagement with the World Health Organization (WHO).¹

At the World Economic Forum, California Governor Gavin Newsom sat opposite Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, the Director-General of the WHO, to formalize an unprecedented arrangement: California would become the first U.S. state to independently join the Global Outbreak Alert and Response Network (GOARN).¹ This technical partnership was announced precisely one day after the United States Department of State, under the administration of President Donald J. Trump, confirmed the completion of the U.S. withdrawal from the WHO, severing a relationship that had anchored global health security since 1948.²

This event, which might be termed the "Davos Divergence," represents more than a mere political disagreement between a Democratic governor and a Republican president. It signals a fundamental transformation in the operational mechanics of American federalism and the conduct of international relations. The federal government, guided by an "America First" doctrine that prioritizes sovereignty and bilateralism, has engaged in a strategic retrenchment, pulling back from multilateral institutions it deems inefficient or compromised.⁴ Conversely, California, wielding an economy that would rank fifth globally if it were an independent nation, has adopted a strategy of "compensatory federalism," stepping into the vacuum left by federal retreat to maintain vital global connectivity.³

The implications of this rupture are vast and multidimensional. Legally, it invites a constitutional confrontation over the limits of state power in foreign affairs, challenging the "one voice" doctrine that has traditionally governed U.S. diplomacy.⁷ Epidemiologically, it creates a fragmented surveillance landscape where viral intelligence may flow to Sacramento but bypass Atlanta, raising critical questions about biosecurity and national preparedness.⁹ Politically, it cements the status of the American state not as a unitary actor, but as a dual-sovereign entity where subnational governments operate distinct, and occasionally conflicting, foreign policies.

This report provides an exhaustive analysis of the California WHO protocol. It examines the historical trajectory of the U.S. withdrawal, the institutional architecture of California’s new health diplomacy, the legal theories that will define the inevitable court battles, and the operational realities of managing pandemic risk in a fractured world. By synthesizing legal precedents, public health data, and geopolitical developments, this inquiry seeks to illuminate the contours of this new era in global governance.

II. The Architecture of Withdrawal: Dismantling the Global Shield

To fully comprehend the significance of California's entry into the international arena, one must first deconstruct the vacuum created by the United States' exit. The withdrawal finalized in January 2026 was not a sudden impulse but the culmination of a long-standing ideological project aimed at reshaping the United States' role in the multilateral system.

A. The Grievance Narrative and the Breakdown of Trust

The official justification for the U.S. withdrawal was articulated in a joint statement by Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) Robert F. Kennedy Jr..² The Trump administration framed the exit as a necessary response to "profound failures" in the WHO’s management of the COVID-19 pandemic, specifically focusing on the organization's early interactions with the People's Republic of China.⁴

Central to the administration's grievance was the timeline of early 2020. The State Department asserted that the WHO "delayed declaring a global public health emergency" and a pandemic, costing the world critical weeks for containment.² Furthermore, federal officials accused the WHO leadership of "echoing and praising" China's response despite intelligence suggesting early underreporting and suppression of information regarding human-to-human transmission.² Secretary Kennedy Jr. added specific scientific grievances to the political ones, citing the WHO's failure to "promptly acknowledge airborne spread" and its dismissal of the laboratory leak hypothesis regarding the origins of SARS-CoV-2.²

These operational critiques were buttressed by a broader ideological argument regarding sovereignty and finance. President Trump’s executive order highlighted the "unfairly onerous payments" required of the United States compared to other nations, particularly China, and argued that the organization had failed to demonstrate independence from "inappropriate political influence".² The administration’s position was that the WHO had become a vehicle for globalist bureaucracy rather than effective health protection, and that American interests were better served by redirecting resources to bilateral partnerships where the U.S. could exercise greater control and accountability.⁵

B. The Mechanics of the Exit

The withdrawal process was executed with bureaucratic precision following the notification given on President Trump's first day in office, January 20, 2025.⁴ Under the terms of the 1948 joint resolution that authorized U.S. participation in the WHO, the President is required to provide a one-year notice and meet financial obligations before withdrawing.¹²

The administration adhered to the timeline, with the withdrawal becoming effective on January 22, 2026.⁴ However, the financial component became a point of contention. Reports indicated that the U.S. had not paid its membership dues for 2024 and 2025, leaving an outstanding debt of approximately $278 million.¹² The refusal to pay these arrears was framed by the administration as a protest against the organization's lack of reform, but legally, it creates a lingering dispute regarding the completeness of the withdrawal under international law.¹²

Operationally, the exit involved a massive decoupling of personnel and systems. The HHS recalled all U.S. assignees, fellows, and liaison officers from WHO headquarters in Geneva and regional offices worldwide.⁴ This "brain drain" removed hundreds of American epidemiologists, virologists, and public health experts from the WHO's technical committees, significantly diminishing the U.S. footprint in setting global health standards.⁴ Simultaneously, the U.S. ceased participation in the governing bodies of the WHO, including the World Health Assembly and the Executive Board.⁴

C. The Pivot to Bilateralism

In place of the multilateral framework, the Trump administration launched a new "America First Global Health Strategy" focused on bilateral engagement.⁵ This strategy involves negotiating direct "Bilateral Agreements on Global Health Cooperation" with individual nations. These agreements condition U.S. health assistance—such as PEPFAR funding or malaria support—on specific performance metrics and alignment with U.S. foreign policy objectives.⁵

By bilateralizing global health, the administration aims to convert health aid into a more direct tool of statecraft, unencumbered by the consensus-based decision-making of the UN system. This approach allows the U.S. to prioritize allies and penalize adversaries, a flexibility that the universal mandate of the WHO does not permit. However, this fragmentation also destroys the economies of scale and the unified surveillance picture that a single global coordinator provides, creating the "operational vacuum" that California seeks to fill.

Table 1: Divergent Health Foreign Policies (2026)

Feature	Federal Policy (The Withdrawal)	California Policy (The Accession)
Status	Full withdrawal from WHO Constitution	Partner membership in GOARN (Technical)
Rationale	Sovereignty, anti-globalism, COVID-19 grievances	Global cooperation, pandemic preparedness, scientific integrity
Financial Strategy	Termination of >$200M/year funding; unpaid arrears	In-kind technical contribution (expertise/staff); state funding
Mechanism	Executive Order 14155; Joint Dept. Notification	Memorandum of Understanding; Technical Partnership
Key Actors	Pres. Trump, Sec. Rubio, Sec. Kennedy Jr.	Gov. Newsom, Dr. Tedros, Dr. Monarez (PHNIX)
Strategic Goal	Bilateral leverage; "America First" health security	Multilateral integration; "Compensatory Federalism"

III. The Rise of the Subnational Actor: California’s Paradiplomacy

California’s entry into GOARN (Global Outbreak Alert And Response Network) is not a singular, impulsive event but the latest escalation in a sophisticated, decades-long evolution of "paradiplomacy"—the conduct of international relations by subnational governments. Governor Gavin Newsom’s administration has systematically constructed a parallel state apparatus capable of engaging the world independently of Washington, D.C.

A. The West Coast Health Alliance: A Regional Regulator

Anticipating the erosion of federal public health authority, California, joined by Oregon, Washington, and Hawaii, established the "West Coast Health Alliance" in September 2025.¹⁴ This body was ostensibly created to provide "evidence-based unified recommendations" on immunizations, explicitly bypassing the guidance of the CDC and its Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP).³

The formation of the Alliance was a direct response to what the governors described as the "politicization of science" and the "destruction of the CDC's credibility" under the Trump administration.¹⁴ By pooling their populations and expert resources, these four states created a regulatory bloc with sufficient market power to influence pharmaceutical manufacturers and public perception. In September 2025, the Alliance issued its first coordinated guidance on the 2025–2026 COVID-19, influenza, and RSV vaccines, relying on independent medical reviews rather than federal directives.³

This regional alliance serves as the domestic foundation for California’s international moves. It demonstrates that the state has already severed its reliance on federal scientific authority for internal regulation, making the leap to independent international intelligence gathering a logical next step.

B. PHNIX: The Government-in-Exile

To operationalize this independence, Governor Newsom launched the Public Health Network Innovation Exchange (PHNIX) in December 2025.¹⁶ PHNIX is designed as a modernization hub for public health infrastructure, but its staffing suggests a more profound purpose: it functions essentially as a CDC-in-exile.

The initiative is led by Dr. Susan Monarez, a former Director of the CDC, and Dr. Debra Houry, the former CDC Chief Medical Officer.¹⁶ These are not merely academic appointees; they are the former stewards of the nation's health security who departed the federal government during the transition or the subsequent purges of the civil service. By recruiting these high-level expatriates from the federal system, California has internalized the institutional memory, global connections, and technical expertise that the federal government discarded.

PHNIX serves as the operational node for the GOARN partnership. When GOARN transmits an alert about a novel pathogen in Southeast Asia, it is not just a state bureaucrat receiving the email; it is Dr. Monarez and her team—experts who know exactly how to interpret the data and mobilize a response, independent of Atlanta.¹⁶ This "personnel transfer" from federal to state jurisdiction is a critical enabler of the California’s global health shift, providing the state with the credibility and capability to act as a peer to national ministries of health.

C. The Davos Incident: Personalizing the Conflict

The geopolitical dimension of California’s move was sharpened by the personal animus displayed at the World Economic Forum. Governor Newsom’s presence in Davos was marked by a direct confrontation with the Trump administration’s delegation and ethos.

In a highly symbolic move, the organizers of the "USA House"—a venue at Davos officially recognized by the U.S. government—canceled a scheduled appearance by Governor Newsom, reportedly under pressure from the White House and State Department.¹⁷ This exclusion underscored the federal government's attempt to enforce a monopoly on U.S. representation abroad.

Newsom responded by taking his message to international media and the main forum stage, delivering a blistering critique of the "Rule of Don," which he described as a degradation of the rule of law and democratic norms.¹⁹ He accused corporate leaders of cowardice ("knee pads") for appeasing the President and positioned California as the true custodian of American values and stability.¹⁹ This rhetorical framing transforms the GOARN accession from a technical health agreement into a highly visible act of political resistance, inviting international partners to choose between the "chaos" of Washington and the "stability" of Sacramento.¹

IV. The GOARN Mechanism: Technical Partnership as Diplomacy

To understand the nature of California’s agreement, it is necessary to distinguish between the political body of the WHO and its technical networks. The Global Outbreak Alert and Response Network (GOARN) is a collaboration of existing institutions, not a treaty organization of states.²⁰

A. Structure and Function of GOARN

Established in 2000, GOARN is a "network of networks" comprising over 300 technical partners, including national public health institutes, academic centers, NGOs, and laboratories.²¹ Its primary mission is the rapid detection, verification, and response to public health emergencies of international concern. It does not set policy; it mobilizes expertise.

When an outbreak occurs—such as Ebola in West Africa or a novel coronavirus—GOARN deploys multidisciplinary teams to the field to assist local authorities.²¹ These teams provide epidemiology, laboratory support, and case management. Crucially, GOARN operates as a "neutral" technical broker, often able to access areas or share data that political entities cannot.²⁰

B. California’s Status: Partner, Not State

California’s accession is legally constructed as a "technical partnership." The California Department of Public Health (CDPH) joins GOARN not as a sovereign nation-state (which would violate the WHO Constitution and U.S. law) but as a "technical institution".²⁰ This is a critical distinction. Other members include the Pasteur Network, the specialized agencies of various nations, and academic bodies like the University of California.²⁴

However, CDPH is unique because it is the primary health agency of a subnational government representing 39 million people. By joining, CDPH agrees to:

1. Contribute Resources: Offer state personnel (epidemiologists, lab technicians) for international deployment.²⁰

2. Share Intelligence: Participate in the rapid exchange of outbreak alerts and risk assessments.²²

3. Adhere to Standards: Align state protocols with GOARN’s operational frameworks for response.²⁰

C. Operational Benefits for California

The value proposition for California is direct access to global biosecurity intelligence. In a standard federal system, the WHO shares data with the national focal point (the CDC), which then disseminates relevant information to the states. With the U.S. withdrawal, that chain of custody is broken.⁹

By joining GOARN, California bypasses the severed federal link. Alerts about a new respiratory virus in Asia or a hemorrhagic fever in Africa will flow directly to the PHNIX command center in Sacramento. This allows California to calibrate its own surveillance, hospital preparedness, and supply chain management weeks or months before a federal warning might (or might not) be issued.³ It is an insurance policy against federal blindness.

V. Legal and Constitutional Battlegrounds

The California data sharing protocol places the state on a collision course with the federal government. The U.S. Constitution vests the power to conduct foreign relations in the President and Congress, prohibiting states from entering into "any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation" (Article I, Section 10).⁷ However, the legal reality is far more nuanced, and California has carefully navigated the grey zones of constitutional law.

A. The Compact Clause Challenge

The most likely avenue for a federal challenge is the Compact Clause, which requires Congressional consent for any "Agreement or Compact" with a foreign power.²⁶ A literal reading would suggest California’s agreement with a UN body is unconstitutional. However, the Supreme Court has historically interpreted this clause functionally rather than literally.

In the seminal case of Virginia v. Tennessee (1893) and reaffirmed in U.S. Steel Corp. v. Multistate Tax Comm'n (1978), the Court held that only agreements that "encroach upon or interfere with the just supremacy of the United States" require congressional consent.²⁷ California will argue that joining GOARN is a non-binding technical arrangement that facilitates information sharing and voluntary mutual aid, similar to cross-border fire-fighting agreements, and does not increase state power at the expense of the federal government.⁷

The state can contend that because the U.S. has withdrawn from the WHO, there is no active federal policy in that specific space to encroach upon. California is merely engaging in a vacuum. The argument would be that the state is not conducting a rival foreign policy, but a supplementary health policy.

B. The Foreign Affairs Doctrine and Preemption

The Trump administration, however, has powerful counter-arguments rooted in the "Foreign Affairs Doctrine" and statutory preemption. The doctrine, articulated in cases like Zschernig v. Miller (1968) and American Insurance Association v. Garamendi (2003), holds that state actions that intrude into the field of foreign affairs are preempted, even in the absence of a conflicting federal statute, if they impair the effective exercise of the nation's foreign policy.²⁹

The administration could argue that the withdrawal from the WHO was a deliberate diplomatic sanction intended to isolate the organization and force reform. By joining the network, California actively undermines this strategy of isolation, diluting the U.S. leverage. In Crosby v. National Foreign Trade Council (2000), the Supreme Court struck down a Massachusetts law restricting trade with Burma because it frustrated the President’s ability to calibrate sanctions.³⁰ The DOJ could argue that California’s participation in GOARN is analogous to breaking a blockade.

C. The Precedent of United States v. California (2020)

The most relevant recent precedent is the 2020 district court victory for California regarding its carbon market linkage with Quebec.⁸ The Trump administration sued to block the agreement, arguing it violated the Treaty and Compact Clauses. The court ruled in favor of California, finding that the agreement did not "impermissibly intrude on the federal government’s foreign affairs power" because there was no "clear and express foreign policy" that it conflicted with, and it did not elevate California to the status of a sovereign negotiating with another sovereign on matters of national security.²⁹

California will lean heavily on this precedent, arguing that GOARN membership is even less intrusive than the cap-and-trade deal (which involved cross-border financial flows). GOARN is an information network. However, the political context is different: in 2020, the U.S. was still technically in the process of withdrawing from Paris; in 2026, the U.S. is fully out of the WHO, making the divergence more absolute.

D. Data Privacy and Executive Order 14117

A novel legal weapon for the federal government lies in data security. The Biden administration’s Executive Order 14117, implemented by DOJ rules in 2025/2026, restricts the transfer of "sensitive personal data" (including genomic data) to "countries of concern".³¹ While the WHO is an international organization, the Trump administration’s narrative that the WHO is beholden to China could be used to classify data transfers to the network as high-risk transactions.

If the California Department of Public Health shares genomic sequences of a local outbreak with GOARN, and that data becomes accessible to Chinese researchers within the network, the federal government could claim a violation of national security export controls.³³ This would move the conflict from vague constitutional principles to specific regulatory enforcement, potentially exposing state officials to criminal or civil liability.

VI. Epidemiological Consequences: The Perils of Fragmentation

Beyond the courtroom, the rupture has immediate and potentially dangerous consequences for public health surveillance and biosecurity. The unified shield of the CDC has been replaced by a patchwork defense.

A. The GISRS Gap and Vaccine Vulnerability

One of the most critical losses from the federal withdrawal is the disconnection from the Global Influenza Surveillance and Response System (GISRS). This network relies on the reciprocal sharing of viral samples between national centers and the WHO to determine the strains for the annual flu vaccine.⁹

Without U.S. membership, the legal framework for importing these samples—critical for the CDC to formulate a vaccine that matches circulating global strains—is in jeopardy. California’s GOARN membership does not fully solve this. GOARN is an outbreak response network, not the routine surveillance network that GISRS represents. While California might receive alerts about a flu outbreak, it lacks the federal authority to issue the import permits and biological licenses required to bring those physical samples into the U.S. for vaccine manufacturing.

This creates a scenario where the U.S. might be flying blind into flu season, relying on outdated or incomplete data to manufacture vaccines for 330 million people. The "West Coast Health Alliance" might recommend a vaccine, but if the raw materials (the viral targets) are missing because of federal isolationism, the recommendation is moot.

B. Blind Spots in the National Grid

The California data-sharing protocol creates a dangerously uneven surveillance map. California, with its direct line to GOARN and its "government-in-exile" at PHNIX, will likely maintain high situational awareness.³ However, the rest of the United States—particularly states aligned with the federal withdrawal—will be severed from these early warning signals.

Pathogens do not respect state lines. A novel virus could enter the U.S. through a port in Texas or Florida, states that are relying solely on the degraded federal CDC capabilities. By the time the virus spreads to California and triggers the GOARN/PHNIX sensors, it may be too late for containment.¹⁰ The fragmentation of the national surveillance grid into "connected" and "isolated" zones fundamentally weakens the collective biosecurity of the continent.

Table 2: Surveillance Capabilities Matrix

Capability	Federal Status (Post-Withdrawal)	California Status (via GOARN/PHNIX)
Early Warning	Lost access to WHO internal alerts (EIS/IHR)	Retained direct access to GOARN alerts
Pathogen Sharing	Severed from GISRS (Flu) / PIP Framework	Ambiguous; lacks federal import authority
Technical Standards	U.S. sets own; no input on global norms	Aligned with WHO/Global standards
Outbreak Deployment	Bilateral only (invited by host country)	Multilateral deployment via GOARN teams

VII. Political Economy and Retaliation:

The conflict is playing out against a backdrop of aggressive political and economic warfare between Washington and Sacramento. The Trump administration has demonstrated a willingness to weaponize federal fiscal power to punish dissent.

A. Fiscal Federalism as a Weapon

The administration has already leveraged federal funding to coerce state compliance. During the Los Angeles fires earlier in the year, President Trump threatened to withhold disaster relief aid unless California enacted voter ID laws, establishing a precedent of "quid pro quo" federalism.³⁴ Additionally, the administration has frozen social services funding and launched DOJ investigations into California’s welfare programs, alleging fraud as a pretext for fiscal squeezing.³⁵

The announcement of the WHO partnership is likely to trigger further retaliation. The President could direct the HHS to withhold Medicaid matching funds or block CDC preparedness grants to California, citing "duplication of services" or "national security risks" associated with the state's foreign entanglements. With the federal budget for Global Health Programs already slated for a 60% cut in the FY2026 proposal ³⁶, the scarcity of resources makes every federal dollar a potential lever of control.

B. Global Reactions and the "Spoiler" Effect

Internationally, California’s move has been welcomed by the WHO and its allies as a vital lifeline. For the WHO, maintaining a foothold in the U.S. via its largest state helps mitigate the financial and scientific loss of the federal exit.³ It allows the organization to claim it still has "American" participation, even if not "United States" participation.

However, this creates a complex diplomatic precedent. If California can join UN networks, can Scotland join the EU independent of the UK? Can Catalonia join UNESCO independent of Spain? By accepting a subnational entity as a primary partner in the absence of the sovereign, the WHO is validating a form of "sovereignty-lite" that could destabilize other nation-states.

VIII. Conclusion: A New Model of Compensatory Federalism

California’s epidemiological data sharing protocol of January 2026 marks the definitive end of the era of cooperative federalism in foreign affairs. It inaugurates a new period of "compensatory federalism," where capable subnational units actively construct parallel foreign policies to mitigate the perceived failures or withdrawals of the national government.

This development is driven by necessity. Faced with a federal government that has abdicated its traditional role as the guarantor of global health security, California had two choices: accept the heightened risk of isolation or build its own bridge to the world. By choosing the latter, Governor Newsom has protected his constituents' immediate interests but has also accelerated the fragmentation of the American union.

As the legal challenges mount and the political rhetoric sharpens, the true test of this new architecture will not be in the courts, but in the field. When the next pandemic threat emerges, the world will watch to see if the "West Coast Health Alliance" and its Geneva partners can detect and stop it while Washington sleeps. The Davos Divergence has ensured that in the next crisis, the United States will not speak with one voice, but with two—and the safety of the nation may depend on which one the world chooses to hear.

Works cited

1. California joins U.N. health network following U.S. departure from WHO, accessed January 24, 2026, https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2026/jan/23/california-joins-un-health-network-following-us-de/

2. United States Completes WHO Withdrawal, accessed January 24, 2026, https://www.hhs.gov/press-room/united-states-completes-who-withdrawal.html

3. Governor Newsom meets with World Health Organization Director-General, announces California becomes first state to join WHO-coordinated international network, accessed January 24, 2026, https://www.gov.ca.gov/2026/01/23/governor-newsom-meets-with-world-health-organization-director-general-announces-california-becomes-first-state-to-join-who-coordinated-international-network/

4. Fact Sheet: U.S. Withdrawal from the World Health Organization | HHS.gov, accessed January 24, 2026, https://www.hhs.gov/press-room/fact-sheet-us-withdrawal-from-the-world-health-organization.html

5. America First Global Health Strategy – Bilateral Agreements on Global Health Cooperation - United States Department of State, accessed January 24, 2026, https://www.state.gov/releases/office-of-the-spokesperson/2025/12/america-first-global-health-strategy-bilateral-agreements-on-global-health-cooperation

6. California becomes 1st state to join WHO disease network following US withdrawal, accessed January 24, 2026, https://www.aa.com.tr/en/americas/california-becomes-1st-state-to-join-who-disease-network-following-us-withdrawal/3809500

7. International Agreements by U.S. States: Federalism, Foreign Affairs, and Constitutional Change - Chicago Unbound, accessed January 24, 2026, https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2338&context=public_law_and_legal_theory

8. California's Cap-and-Trade Agreement with Quebec: Surviving Constitutional Scrutiny, accessed January 24, 2026, https://eelp.law.harvard.edu/californias-cap-and-trade-agreement-with-quebec-surviving-constitutional-scrutiny/

9. US Leaves World Health Organization - Contagion Live, accessed January 24, 2026, https://www.contagionlive.com/view/us-leaves-world-health-organization

10. Data Sharing in a Decentralized Public Health System: Lessons From COVID-19 Syndromic Surveillance - PubMed Central, accessed January 24, 2026, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11009847/

11. California breaks with rest of US on WHO after Trump withdrawal, accessed January 24, 2026, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/healthcare/4432345/california-who-trump-withdrawal/

12. US formally withdraws from World Health Organization, leaving debt - CIDRAP, accessed January 24, 2026, https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/public-health/us-formally-withdraws-world-health-organization-leaving-debt

13. In Numbers: How American exit offsets WHO’s targets and impacts global health systems worldwide, accessed January 24, 2026, https://www.financialexpress.com/world-news/in-numbers-how-american-exit-offsets-whos-targets-and-impacts-global-health-systems-worldwidenbsp/4117610/

14. California, Oregon, and Washington to launch new West Coast Health Alliance to uphold scientific integrity in public health as Trump destroys CDC's credibility | Governor of California, accessed January 24, 2026, https://www.gov.ca.gov/2025/09/03/california-oregon-and-washington-to-launch-new-west-coast-health-alliance-to-uphold-scientific-integrity-in-public-health-as-trump-destroys-cdcs-credibility/

15. California becomes 1st US state to join WHO disease network, accessed January 24, 2026, https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202601/1354096.shtml

16. Governor Newsom announces top former CDC officials to lead public health innovation, collaboration, accessed January 24, 2026, https://www.gov.ca.gov/2025/12/15/governor-newsom-announces-top-former-cdc-officials-to-lead-public-health-innovation-collaboration/

17. Gavin Newsom was set to use the official U.S. venue in Davos. Then, Trump's team blocked him, accessed January 24, 2026, https://calmatters.org/politics/2026/01/newsom-davos-interview-trump/

18. Gavin Newsom’s Davos talk cancelled a last minute amid alleged State Department pressure: Report, accessed January 24, 2026, https://www.livemint.com/news/us-news/gavin-newsom-s-davos-talk-cancelled-a-last-minute-amid-alleged-state-department-pressure-report-11769022830245.html

19. California Governor Gavin Newsom slams Trump at Davos, US under "rule of Don", accessed January 24, 2026, https://www.aninews.in/news/world/europe/california-governor-gavin-newsom-slams-trump-at-davos-us-under-rule-of-don20260122152458

20. Governance framework of the Global Outbreak Alert and Response Network - World Health Organization (WHO), accessed January 24, 2026, https://www.who.int/publications/b/70197

21. GOARN 【Global Outbreak Alert and Response Network】 | About GIC, accessed January 24, 2026, https://gic.jihs.go.jp/en/about/goarn.html

22. The Global Outbreak Alert and Response Network (GOARN), accessed January 24, 2026, https://www.who.int/westernpacific/wpro-emergencies/response/the-global-outbreak-alert-and-response-network-(goarn)

23. California becomes 1st U.S. state to join WHO disease network, accessed January 24, 2026, https://m.thepeninsulaqatar.com/article/24/01/2026/california-becomes-1st-us-state-to-join-who-disease-network

24. The Pasteur Network joins the GOARN, accessed January 24, 2026, https://pasteur-network.org/news/the-pasteur-network-joins-the-goarn/

25. Global Outbreak Alert and Response Network deployments during the COVID-19 pandemic, WHO Western Pacific Region - PMC - NIH, accessed January 24, 2026, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10948340/

26. Overview of the Compact Clause | U.S. Constitution Annotated - Law.Cornell.Edu, accessed January 24, 2026, https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-1/section-10/clause-3/overview-of-the-compact-clause

27. ArtI.S10.C3.3.1 Overview of Compact Clause - Constitution Annotated - Congress.gov, accessed January 24, 2026, https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S10-C3-3-1/ALDE_00013531/

28. State Empowerment and the Compact Clause - W&M Law School Scholarship Repository, accessed January 24, 2026, https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1887&context=wmborj

29. United States v. California - The Climate Litigation Database, accessed January 24, 2026, https://www.climatecasechart.com/collections/united-states-v-california_3e25f0

30. Constitutional Limits on States' Power over Foreign Affairs - Congress.gov, accessed January 24, 2026, https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/LSB10808

31. Preventing Access to U.S. Sensitive Personal Data and Government-Related Data by Countries of Concern or Covered Persons - Federal Register, accessed January 24, 2026, https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/01/08/2024-31486/preventing-access-to-us-sensitive-personal-data-and-government-related-data-by-countries-of-concern

32. Department of Justice (DOJ) Executive Order 14117: Preventing Access to Americans' Bulk Sensitive Personal Data | Office of Ethics and Compliance, accessed January 24, 2026, https://compliance.ucsf.edu/department-justice-doj-executive-order-14117-preventing-access-americans-bulk-sensitive-personal

33. U.S. Health Data Affected by New National Security Restrictions on International Data Transfers | Insights | Holland & Knight, accessed January 24, 2026, https://www.hklaw.com/en/insights/publications/2025/05/us-health-data-affected-by-new-national-security-restrictions

34. Trump's Threats to Withhold Disaster Relief Undermine Federalism Principles, accessed January 24, 2026, https://statecourtreport.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/trumps-threats-withhold-disaster-relief-undermine-federalism-principles

35. Newsom touts gains against EBT theft as Trump presses blue states on benefits fraud, accessed January 24, 2026, https://calmatters.org/politics/2026/01/california-welfare-fraud-improvement/

36. Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2026 Budget and Appropriations | Congress.gov, accessed January 24, 2026, https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R48624