The United States was one of just three nations to vote against a declaration on “pandemic prevention, preparedness and response” that was adopted by the United Nations, drawing alarm from public health advocates.

“They are going to kill us,” advocate Laura Miers, best known for her commentary on COVID-19, wrote in a social media post on X Tuesday.

Adopted in a vote of 153-3, with two abstentions, the declaration outlines how countries can improve their response to future pandemics and includes 64 recommendations such as expanding access to vaccines, committing to protect vulnerable populations, and strengthening international coordination. The declaration is not legally binding.

The United States, Israel and Argentina were the only nations to vote against adopting the declaration. New Zealand and Paraguay abstained from the vote.

The text had been expected to pass by consensus at a high-level meeting in September, but objections from the United States and a few other countries forced a vote, according to UN News. The U.S. representative had cited “divisive ideologies that lack definitional consensus,” as well as the declaration’s references to ongoing negotiations over an annex to the World Health Organization’s pandemic agreement.

“Now why would the US, Israel, and Argentina very specifically vote NO on a new global pandemic preparedness declaration?” Miers asked. “Let’s think about this for a moment.”

Colorado-based journalist Mat Smith blamed Republicans.

“Republicans stopped believing in science when it became profitable to do so,” Smith wrote, reacting to the U.S. vote against the pandemic preparedness declaration.

For decades, the United States has often voted against the overwhelming consensus of the United Nations alongside Israel, particularly on issues related to Palestine.

In 2021, the United States and Israel were the only nations to vote against a resolution affirming that having access to food was a human right. The United States and Israel were the only nations to vote against ending the longstanding U.S. embargo on Cuba in 2024, and in 2023, the United States and Israel were joined by just two other nations, Micronesia and Nauru, in voting against affirming Palestinians’ right to self-determination.

The Supreme Court granted a Justice Department request to review an order that could expose how much power the White House’s cost-cutting office wielded over firings and spending cuts across the government.

The justices granted the petition Tuesday, according to the court’s docket. The government is fighting a lawsuit by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington seeking records from the Department of Government Efficiency, officially known as the U.S. DOGE Service.

CREW argues the office wielded enough independent power to fall under the Freedom of Information Act. It’s the second time the case has reached the justices, who last year reined in an earlier order, the Associated Press reported.

The order under review lets CREW seek evidence, a process known as discovery, about the office’s directives to cancel contracts and fire workers. It also lets CREW seek information about the office’s access to sensitive data, records on its employees, and sworn testimony from its leader, according to the Justice Department’s brief.

“Perhaps most dramatically, the court of appeals summarily approved the deposition of a high-level presidential advisor—USDS Administrator Amy Gleason—without even acknowledging that it was doing so,” the brief said.

“[D]iscovery into sensitive interbranch communications risks chilling future communications by presidential advisors who will have to fear having their advice disclosed in litigation,” Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote.

“USDS has already made clear that it has issued no binding directives to agencies because it lacks the legal authority to do so,” Sauer argued.

In February 2025, CNN’s Alayna Treene asked White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt whether the office’s staff had real authority, including power to make hiring and firing decisions, Treene wrote on X.

“DOGE does not have statutory authority. DOGE is advising...It’s ultimately up to the discretion of these secretaries to make these hirings & firings,” Leavitt said.

Statutory authority is power Congress grants. The government’s brief makes the same case, calling the office “a purely advisory body.” If sworn evidence shows that advice functioned as orders, the White House’s own description of the office could turn into a liability.

Courts in other cases have already used evidence of the office’s role to void its actions, including in May, when U.S. District Judge Colleen McMahon in New York ordered the National Endowment for the Humanities to restore more than 1,400 grants worth more than $100 million.

Documents revealed in discovery in that case showed DOGE staffers used ChatGPT to flag grants for cancellation, according to Inside Higher Ed.

“DOGE had no statutory authority to terminate NEH grants,” McMahon wrote, according to Minnesota Lawyer. “And on the undisputed evidence, DOGE — not the NEH Chairperson or anyone else at NEH — effectuated the terminations at issue here.”

In March, in a separate case brought by nonprofit groups, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan allowed claims to proceed that DOGE’s leader needed Senate confirmation before allegedly directing federal workforce actions.

CREW’s June brief opposing review described “massive changes across the federal government,” including former White House adviser Elon Musk’s announcement of canceled contracts “worth billions of dollars.” The brief also cited the office’s “unprecedented access to sensitive personal and classified data and payment systems.”

“This appeal is an obvious delay tactic to keep the American public in the dark about DOGE’s reckless operation and disastrous impact,” CREW President Donald K. Sherman said after the petition was filed in March.

CREW chief counsel Nikhel Sus said Tuesday the group intends to keep pressing for “transparency” about DOGE.

President Donald Trump’s new press secretary, Katie Zacharia, opened up a new line of questions with an unexpected answer when asked where she had passed the bar exam.

Trump has described Zacharia as “an attorney,” and she has repeatedly done the same on national TV. But a new investigation by Popular Information’s Judd Legum found no evidence that she has ever been admitted to practice law in any state, and the question came up Tuesday after her debut press conference.

“Trump was asked what state Zacharia passed the bar exam,” Legum posted on X. “Trump deferred to Zacharia to answer. Zacharia said, ‘When I moved to China.’ Which makes absolutely no sense. She appears to waive away follow up questions.”

Zacharia earned a law degree, but that alone doesn’t authorize someone to practice law. That requires admission to a state bar, which usually means passing a bar exam. Legum’s search of bar records in all 50 states and Washington, D.C., turned up no sign that she holds a law license.

She isn’t listed with the State Bar of California, where she lives, or with the bars in Texas and D.C., where she has also worked.

“After graduating from law school in 2011, Zacharia moved to China, where she worked at Zhong Lun, a large Chinese law firm,” Legum reported. “It is quite plausible for a law school graduate who is not admitted to practice law in any state to work for a firm in China, since the work may not involve American courts.”

“But Zacharia has claimed that, while in China, she served as ‘outside counsel’ to both the World Bank and the International Finance Corporation (IFC),” he added. “The World Bank and the IFC employing a recent law school graduate with little to no experience as ‘outside counsel’ is less plausible.”

Zacharia’s answer drew immediate skepticism.

“To be clear, there is zero chance Zacharia took the Chinese bar exam,” Legum posted. “She doesn’t speak Chinese and only Chinese citizens can take it.”

“Insane that this is who he hired for the job,” marveled podcaster Kacee Allen. “Where is Trump even finding these people?”

“Given her performance this morning she couldn’t pass an English language exam either,” joked popular Bluesky user Debbie Hemenway. “Maybe she got her license wherever Melania Trump got her advanced degrees.”

“The press secretary is a temu attorney?” asked Bluesky user I dug coal with Baby Billy.