Article Summary JB Pritzker announced Illinois will join the World Health Organization’s Global Outbreak Alert and Response Network, allowing the
Illinois will join the World Health Organization’s Global Outbreak Alert and Response Network, or GOARN, to counterbalance the federal government’s withdrawal, Gov. JB Pritzker announced Tuesday.
The network monitors disease outbreaks across the globe and prepares countries to respond to those outbreaks. As a member, Illinois will have access to research, timely alerts and information about outbreaks, risk assessments and trainings so state officials can respond to public health emergencies.
The move follows President Donald Trump leaving the international health organization in January 2025.
“By withdrawing from the World Health Organization, Donald Trump has undermined science and weakened our nation’s ability to detect and respond to global health threats,” Pritzker said in a news release. “I refuse to sit idly by and let that happen.”
Many WHO meetings involve national governments around the world, but GOARN is open to a wider variety of groups. It connects hundreds of public institutions, laboratories, academic institutions and different levels of government to detect and respond to public health threats like COVID-19, influenza and other diseases.
“Membership in this network strengthens Illinois’ preparedness for future pandemics and emerging threats,” the release states.
Illinois will bring laboratory capacity to the organization, including genomic sequencing and wastewater surveillance developed for COVID-19. Illinois also provides expertise in outbreak investigations and communication about risk.
Already, the Illinois Department of Public Health collects data and information about emerging health risks, and that will continue.
“Disease knows no borders,” said Dr. Sameer Vohra, director of IDPH. “The decision by the U.S. government to withdraw from the World Health Organization threatens decades of progress in global health coordination that makes Illinois residents safer.”
Joining GOARN is another move Pritzker has made to counter federal public health policies.
Pritzker in 2025 signed a bill to allow IDPH to set its own vaccine guidelines. It also requires insurance companies to cover vaccines that are recommended by IDPH.
He also joined the Governors Public Health Alliance, a group of 15 other governors that coordinates to monitor public health threats, share information and communicate with the global health community.
California also joined GOARN in late January.
The withdrawal is complicated because there is no official way to leave WHO and the United States is the only country with the ability to do so. Experts say it’s up to WHO members when the departure is finalized, and they expect the matter to come up in meetings in February and May.
Leaving WHO doesn’t mean leaving all global health efforts. The U.S. will still participate in organizations like UNICEF and the United Nations Children’s Fund.
Trump tried in 2020 to leave WHO, but President Joe Biden reversed that decision. Trump has accused WHO of not being independent and has demanded reforms without clarifying what those are. He has also criticized the way WHO handled the COVID-19 pandemic.
Tom Hughes, executive director of the Illinois Public Health Association, praised the announcement, emphasizing how strong systems and partnerships are crucial to public health.
“Public health works best when we are informed, connected, and prepared,” he said. “Joining GOARN means Illinois public health leaders can access timely, reliable information, global expertise, and trusted partners when it matters most.”
Capitol News Illinois is a nonprofit, nonpartisan news service that distributes state government coverage to hundreds of news outlets statewide. It is funded primarily by the Illinois Press Foundation and the Robert R. McCormick Foundation.
Read the original article
Comments
It's fascinating the country-ification happening with the US states as the political divide between the state level and federal level political perspectives grows wider. Much like California, Illinois plays a global scale when looked at in isolation (though at a smaller level than California). Its 1.14T GDP puts it around #20 worldwide for GDP when compared to other countries (just behind Saudi Arabia).
It'll be interesting to see what other states follow suit.
Massachusetts just signed an agreement with Denmark [1] covering several things. From their press release:
> Today, Massachusetts Governor Maura Healey welcomed a delegation from Denmark for a series of meetings focused on strengthening the scientific, technological and commercial ties between Massachusetts and Denmark. During the visit, Governor Healey and Denmark’s Ambassador to the U.S. Jesper Møller Sørensen signed an economic partnership agreement, committing to work together to grow their leadership in life sciences, health care, biomanufacturing, advanced manufacturing, robotics and artificial intelligence.
By caseysoftware 2026-02-041:222 reply This is an interesting one..
Negotiating treaties is the exclusive authority of POTUS but approving them is the US Senate's job.
"Committing to work together" is probably vague enough that it's not meaningful but "signed an economic partnership" with a foreign ambassador is pretty explicit.
I wonder how they're going to make this one work.
By mothballed 2026-02-041:253 reply It's actually a crime for unauthorized officials to negotiate with countries directly to influence disputes, under the Logan act.
Going backdoor with Denmark to make "unrelated agreements" (wink-wink) at the same time as the Greenland dispute is just a cheap way to get around that.
* Note that this doesn't mean I agree with the Logan act, but it's pretty obvious what is happening.
By kevin_thibedeau 2026-02-041:31 It's also a crime for people to pretend to be electors and submit fraudulent paperwork.
By jjcm 2026-02-0423:02 It's also something that wont be prosecuted under the current admnistration, given a lot of the Trump family have acted in the role of foreign diplomats despite not holding official positions. Prosecuting the states for this would open equal scrutiny for them.
Not in this case, since the US hasn't sanctioned Denmark. Trump's rage bleating on Truth Social doesn't constitute official policy. Now, if restrictions on doing business with Denmark were published in the Federal Register, it could get complicated.
By caseysoftware 2026-02-042:191 reply I admit, other than in name, I'm not familiar with the Logan Act. Where does it require sanctions or similar?
By anigbrowl 2026-02-046:26 There isn't a dispute is there isn't any sort of official government publication about it. Late night rants on Truth Social don't meet that standard.
California set this precedent roughly a decade ago [0] with no challenge. It will stand.
Subnational diplomacy is the norm in most federations, hence why GOP led Iowa [1] and Montana [2] lobbied in favor of India with Trump leading to the current trade deal [3].
[0] - https://calmatters.org/environment/2017/11/gov-jerry-brown-t...
[1] - https://governor.iowa.gov/press-release/2025-09-07/gov-reyno...
[2] - https://www.daines.senate.gov/2026/01/20/daines-travels-to-i...
[3] - https://www.reuters.com/world/india/us-trade-chief-says-indi...
By caseysoftware 2026-02-042:211 reply It looks like California showed up and participated in conversations, didn't sign anything. Montana appears to have lobbied, again not signing anything.
Iowa is the exception and I'd be curious what gave them the authority and how much, why it wasn't challenged last fall, and if Massachusettes meets the same circumstances.
By alephnerd 2026-02-042:32 Conversations are conversations, and that's my point. This is the "MoU"fication of the US, and honestly, it's not a bad thing.
Reincentivizing states to compete with each other for FDI is not a bad policy. If TX and CA talk with energy speicifc SWFs and go on roadshows abroad, there's nothing wrong with that.
It lights a fire under other state legislator asses.
By everdrive 2026-02-041:21 One of Russia's two big fantasies: the breakup of NATO and the balkanization of the US.
By distortionfield 2026-02-040:421 reply It’s going to lead to balkanization, and it seems at this point to be basically intentional.
By mothballed 2026-02-040:483 reply Increasing federal power is what is going to lead to balkanization. Now that the 10th amendment is null and void the executive and federal government have nearly limitless power, particularly through expanded interpretation of the commerce clause, we find ourselves in a hell where we teeter between two extremes who badly both need to get into power to not be dominated by the other.
Allowing states to differ wildly was what let bygones be bygones, but no we can't have that anymore, everything nowadays seems to need to be imposed on everyone via 190,000 pages of federal regulations and 300,000 federal laws.
> Allowing states to differ wildly was what let bygones be bygones,
I'm not convinced this was ever a thing. A good example is Bleeding Kansas (something every elementary student in the state is taught about, or used to be), in which Missourians flooded the state to influence elections and intimidate free-staters in hopes of creating another slave state (it's still a minor point of rivalry to this day). Point being, during the lead up to the civil war we had states trying to control the politics of other states
By mothballed 2026-02-041:08 I don't see the civil war as working against my thesis. Maybe it was worth it cuz slavery, but god forbid it happens again I don't think there is an excuse nearly as good as slavery to be fighting over today.
> Allowing states to differ wildly was what let bygones be bygones, but no we can't have that anymore, everything nowadays seems to need to be imposed on everyone via 190,000 pages of federal regulations and 300,000 federal laws.
I'm not certain this is a good historical take.
When sates actually had this kind of leeway, they used it to defend chattel slavery, and even after losing a war in support of the institution they still distorted their laws to maintain apartheid.
Were bygones really bygones back in the good 'ol days of race based oppression? Maybe for the gentry, but obviously not for those who were being oppressed.
By palmotea 2026-02-0416:11 > Were bygones really bygones back in the good 'ol days of race based oppression? Maybe for the gentry, but obviously not for those who were being oppressed.
You're being far too black and white. There's a lot of space between "allow slavery" and "total federally-mandated conformity."
By parl_match 2026-02-042:09 > Increasing federal power is what is going to lead to balkanization
lmao imagine opening with that and expecting anyone to take you seriously.
and im not even passing a judgement call on whether or not federal power is good, nor am i saying there's only one potential cause of balkanization.
but, lmao
By bigstrat2003 2026-02-041:091 reply Honestly, as someone who strongly believes in federalism and hates what our country turned into over the 20th century, I hope the trend continues. The federal government was never meant to have as much power as it took on during the FDR administration, and it's high time we reversed some of the affronts to the Constitution that happened back then. Hopefully things like this can be the first step.
By mothballed 2026-02-041:23 Yes but the quiet part out loud is that rewinding FDR unwinds the 'switch in time that saved 9' which reverse the SCOTUS decisions that ultimately allow the EPA, most applications of the NFA/GCA (gun control), civil rights act as it pertain to intrastate business, controlled substance act as it pertains to intrastate trade, most functions of regulatory agencies, etc.
So while your comment might be acceptable on face, if you actually explain what it means you will be damned for it.
By toomuchtodo 2026-02-040:372 reply Blue states combined are the second largest economy in the world, just ahead of China (3rd) but behind the US in totality. California alone is the fourth largest economy. Their economy would be worth about ~$15T. Combining resources is simply good policy imho.
It will be interesting to see exactly where Texas decides to come down if there really was a split in the US. I have to imagine they would want to follow the rich blue states rather than be stuck footing the bill for Arkansas and Mississippi.
I guess they probably just try to become their own country, like they already did once anyway.
Texas is red (rural and suburban) with big dots of blue (urban).
If worse comes to worst, Texans will be fighting ourselves first.
By wpm 2026-02-042:05 That describes essentially every state in the Union. Illinois is red with big dots of blue.
Blue states are states where the big dots of blue are big enough to outweigh the rural red. The only major difference between Indiana and Illinois is Chicago.
By mlrtime 2026-02-0412:12 >Texas is red (rural and suburban) with big dots of blue (urban).
Isn't every state including California? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_United_States_presidentia...
The only thing unique about CA here is the coast line, which is just a proxy for dense population.
By kevin_thibedeau 2026-02-041:371 reply Texas was Democratic 35 years ago. They also gain 100k Californians each year so becoming more and more purple.
> Texas was Democratic 35 years ago.
As I believe were many southern states at that time, but certainly not because they were at all "liberal", either by the standards of then or now.
Both parties have changed so much since then that it's a weak comparison at best.
By kevin_thibedeau 2026-02-043:18 I attended the Arkansas Governor's School in '92. The last with Clinton's influence. They had remarkably liberal programs to expose kids to the broader world. After that year the J-freaks took over and eliminated all of that programming to suit their flavor of bigotry but that doesn't erase the people that were and still are there.
By kevin_thibedeau 2026-02-041:35 They need to team up and petition to be annexed as Canada's 11th province.
By chneu 2026-02-0417:00 Oregon has been strengthening their Asian business ties over the last few years.
The entire west coast is also gearing up to form interstate health compacts and other agreements to replace the federal government.
By bamboozled 2026-02-041:541 reply Is this the point of the "states" in America, if the administration is a failure, states can basically secede and just get back to sensible governance / getting work done ?
There were a lot of reasons for keeping states as states when the US formed. Anything from fears of too much centralized power to being a compromise to get agreement from all of the states at the time. Secession wasn't one listed as a states right though, in either the original Articles of Confederation or in the Constitution.
Since then, the Supreme Court has consistently held it would effectively require a constitutional amendment defining secession for a state to be able to legally secede. So the realistic paths are still only "pretty much the whole country wants to dissolve and come up with something new instead" or "revolution".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secession_in_the_United_States...
By bamboozled 2026-02-0414:24 Thanks for the response!
By qwikhost 2026-02-041:58 Time for each state to get independent
