2 Day Countdown For U.S. To Sue The WHO, DAVOS 2026 DAY 2, UN Became a WEF Subsidiary, The COVID Connection, IoJ Suing WHO, FDA, HHS, DoD!

People Called It “a disturbing corporate capture of the UN” that would “move the world dangerously towards a privatized and undemocratic global governance.”

First! If you haven’t signed the global demand yet, Sign and Share Far and wide!!

Sign The Demand Here: http://www.suethewho.org

They authorized mass human experimentation on the entire planet without informed consent — in direct violation of the Nuremberg Code, ICCPR Article 7, and the Declaration of Helsinki!IoJ Needs your help to sustain Legal actions in the courts! We’re actively suing the FDA, HHS, DoD and also the WHO For COVID-19 abomination! Can you help Sponsor the cases or know someone who can? Support our legal work. IoJ’s suing in US federal court right now! If you are in the position to sponsor these cases, please make a donation today! We need your help! Call me (+1 323-244-2960) Dustin if you have any questions! Contact@interestofjustice.org

---

By Interest of Justice | January 20, 2026

---

Today in Davos, Ursula von der Leyen called for “European independence.” China’s Vice Premier He Lifeng positioned Beijing as the stable, reliable partner in a chaotic world. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told Europeans to “take a deep breath.”

Meanwhile, Trump posted a doctored image of himself planting the American flag on Greenland with a caption reading “US Territory Est. 2026.”

The old order is cracking. Everyone can see it now.

But here’s what most people don’t understand.. the “international order” that’s falling apart isn’t the one you learned about in school. It’s not the UN General Assembly where countries debate and vote. It’s not treaties ratified by legislatures. It’s not the system where governments represent their citizens in international forums.

That system got replaced — quietly, formally, in broad daylight — in 2019.

---

June 13, 2019

Six months before anyone had heard of COVID-19, UN Secretary-General António Guterres flew to New York to sign a document with Klaus Schwab.

The document was called the “Strategic Partnership Framework” between the United Nations and the World Economic Forum. The stated purpose: to “jointly accelerate implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.”

The agreement covered six areas:

• Financing the 2030 Agenda

• Climate change (carbon neutrality by 2050)

• Health (addressing “emerging global health threats”)

• Digital cooperation (Fourth Industrial Revolution governance)

• Gender equality and women’s empowerment

• Education and skills (through “public-private partnerships”)

On paper, it sounds like a cooperation agreement. NGO works with international body. Happens all the time.

But this wasn’t that.

The WEF isn’t an NGO. It’s a membership organization for the world’s largest corporations. Its “partners” include Saudi Aramco, Shell, Chevron, BP, Facebook, Google, Amazon, Microsoft, Apple, Pfizer, Moderna, AstraZeneca, Nestlé, Coca-Cola, Unilever, and about a thousand others. Annual membership fees run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars. The biggest sponsors pay millions.

When the UN signed a “strategic partnership” with the WEF, it wasn’t partnering with a charity. It was formalizing a relationship with a corporate lobbying organization — and giving that organization official status in shaping UN policy.

More than 400 civil society organizations signed an open letter demanding the agreement be rescinded. They called it “a disturbing corporate capture of the UN” that would “move the world dangerously towards a privatized and undemocratic global governance.”

Harris Gleckman, a former UN official who spent decades studying global governance, called it “the most comprehensive proposal for re-designing global governance since the formulation of the United Nations during World War II.”

Nobody voted on it. No legislature ratified it. The UN General Assembly didn’t debate it. It was signed by two men — Guterres and Schwab — and announced in a press release.

---

What “Multi-Stakeholder Governance” Actually Means

The WEF has a term for what they’re building. They call it “multi-stakeholder governance.”

It sounds democratic. Stakeholders! Multiple perspectives! Inclusion!

Here’s what it actually means… Corporations get a formal seat at the table of global decision-making, equal to — or above — elected governments.

The WEF spelled this out explicitly in their 2010 Global Redesign Initiative, a 600-page report that laid out their vision for restructuring international governance. The key line:

“The government voice would be one among many, without always being the final arbiter.”

Read that again. They’re not hiding it.

In the old system — the one built after World War II — governments negotiated treaties. Legislatures ratified them. If you didn’t like your country’s position, you could vote for different leaders. It was slow, messy, often corrupt, frequently ineffective. But there was a chain of accountability that connected international decisions to citizens.

In the WEF model, that chain gets cut. “Stakeholders” — which in practice means corporations, NGOs selected by those corporations, and government officials acting in their personal capacity — make decisions together. The “agile governance” of the private sector replaces the “bureaucratic” processes of democracy.

When Schwab says governments shouldn’t be “the final arbiter,” he’s not speaking theoretically. He’s describing what the WEF has been building for two decades.

The WEF has created over 40 “Global Agenda Councils” covering everything from cybersecurity to food systems to the future of work. These councils develop policy frameworks that then get adopted — sometimes word for word — by governments and international agencies. The UN partnership formalized this process.

Who sits on these councils? Executives from WEF member companies. Academics from universities those companies fund. Former government officials who now work for those companies. And a handful of civil society representatives selected by the WEF itself.

It’s not a conspiracy. It’s a business model. And it’s been operating in plain sight for years!

---

October 18, 2019- Event 201

Four months after the UN-WEF partnership was signed, something interesting happened in New York.

The Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, in partnership with the World Economic Forum and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, hosted a “pandemic tabletop exercise” called Event 201.

A quick Web search explains it simply

The scenario- a novel coronavirus, originating in pigs, spreading globally. The exercise simulated how governments, corporations, and international organizations would respond to a pandemic — focusing on communication strategies, supply chain management, and “combating misinformation.”

The participants included:

• George Gao, Director-General of the Chinese CDC

• Avril Haines, former Deputy Director of the CIA (later Biden’s Director of National Intelligence)

• Executives from Johnson & Johnson, Lufthansa, UPS, and NBC Universal

• Officials from the World Bank, UN Foundation, and WHO

The exercise produced recommendations that governments and corporations should work together to combat “misinformation.” Social media companies should amplify “authoritative sources.” Supply chains should be pre-positioned for rapid vaccine deployment. Public-private partnerships should coordinate the response.

Six weeks later, the first COVID-19 cases were reported in Wuhan.

Now — I want to be clear about something. Event 201 wasn’t a secret. The Johns Hopkins Center published full documentation, including videos of the sessions. It wasn’t a planning meeting for a manufactured pandemic. Epidemiologists had been warning about coronavirus pandemic risk for years; running simulations is what pandemic preparedness experts do.

But the timing is relevant for a different reason.

On March 11, 2020 — the same day the WHO declared COVID-19 a pandemic — the WEF launched the “COVID Action Platform” in partnership with the WHO. This platform was designed to coordinate the global response, bringing together governments, corporations, and international organizations in exactly the structure Event 201 had simulated.

The UN-WEF partnership, signed nine months earlier, provided the institutional framework. Event 201 provided the playbook. And when the moment came, the infrastructure was already in place.

Within three months of the pandemic declaration, Klaus Schwab was on stage announcing “The Great Reset” — arguing that the pandemic represented “a rare but narrow window of opportunity to reflect, reimagine, and reset our world.”

The crisis was the catalyst. But the architecture was already built.

---

How It Works In Practice

Let me give you a concrete example of what “multi-stakeholder governance” looks like.

In 2021, the UN hosted a “Food Systems Summit” to set global policy on agriculture, nutrition, and food security. This summit originated directly from the UN-WEF partnership agreement.

The WEF’s EAT Forum — founded by Norwegian billionaire Gunhild Stordalen and closely tied to the Lancet medical journal — was given a leading role in shaping the agenda. EAT promotes what it calls the “Planetary Health Diet”: semi-vegetarian, with red meat classified as “unhealthy” alongside sugar. Their portfolio of “solutions” includes lab-grown meat, insect protein, and plant-based imitation foods.

The summit’s “Action Tracks” were led by:

• A vegan advocate as Youth Vice-Chair

• The CEO of “50by40,” an organization whose stated mission is to halve global livestock herds by 2040

• The Good Food Institute, which promotes lab-grown meat

Farmer organizations — the people who actually grow food — were largely excluded from leadership. When they complained, the UN’s own Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food called the process “problematic” and warned it risked “a takeover by transnational corporations.”

The summit produced recommendations that align remarkably well with the interests of WEF member companies in the alternative protein space, the agrochemical industry, and the digital agriculture sector.

This is how multi-stakeholder governance works. The process looks inclusive — lots of “stakeholders” participating. But the stakeholders are selected by the conveners. The agendas are set in advance. The farmer who raises cattle isn’t a “stakeholder.” The corporation trying to replace his beef with lab-grown protein is.

---

What You’re Watching in Davos Right Now

This brings us back to today.

When von der Leyen stood on the Davos stage this morning and called for “European independence,” she was speaking inside a system the EU helped build. The European Commission has been one of the WEF’s closest government partners for decades. Brussels and Davos have been so intertwined that critics call it “revolving door governance.”

When He Lifeng positioned China as the “reliable” partner committed to “multilateralism,” he was playing to the Davos crowd. China has invested heavily in the UN system precisely because it provides leverage. Beijing has increased its voting power at the IMF, placed officials in key UN agency positions, and expanded its influence in international standard-setting bodies. The WEF model — where economic power translates directly to governance influence — suits China fine.

When Trump’s team shows up to make deals with CEOs instead of negotiating with the UN bureaucracy, they’re not rejecting global governance. They’re just cutting out the middleman. The corporations are here either way.

This is the architecture. Built over decades. Formalized in 2019. Stress-tested during COVID. And now facing its first real crisis — not from populist movements or civil society groups, but from a US administration that decided it would rather deal directly with the money than pretend the institutions still matter.

---

The Numbers

Here’s what the Davos system looks like in practice:

3,000 — Delegates at Davos 2026

850 — CEOs and corporate chairs attending

65 — Heads of state and government

$18.3 trillion — Collective wealth of the world’s billionaires (Oxfam report, released yesterday)

400+ — Civil society organizations that signed the letter opposing the UN-WEF partnership

0 — Legislatures that voted to ratify it

The WEF’s own Global Risks Report this year shows that only 6% of surveyed experts expect the “multilateral order” to survive in its current form. What they don’t mention is that the “multilateral order” was already replaced. What’s collapsing now is the facade.

---

Why This Matters

Tomorrow, Trump will take the Davos stage. He’ll probably talk about Greenland, tariffs, and making deals. The European leaders will respond with calls for unity and dialogue. The CEOs will nod along and schedule private meetings.

None of them will mention the UN-WEF partnership, or the Global Agenda Councils, or the way policy gets made in working groups that don’t appear on any public agenda.

They won’t mention it because it’s not controversial to them. It’s just how things work.

But here’s what’s worth understanding- the system Trump is disrupting isn’t democracy. It’s the thing that replaced democracy at the international level. The “rules-based order” everyone keeps defending is a set of rules written by unelected stakeholders in private meetings, then handed to governments for implementation.

Trump isn’t saving democracy by wrecking this system. But let’s not pretend the system he’s wrecking was democratic in the first place.

The question isn’t whether the old order survives. It won’t — the WEF’s own experts say so.

The question is what replaces it. And right now, the people answering that question are in Davos, drinking expensive coffee in the Swiss Alps, and they didn’t ask your opinion.

---

Support our legal work. IoJ’s suing in US federal court right now! If you are in the position to sponsor these cases, please make a donation today! We need your help! Call me (+1 323-244-2960) Dustin if you have any questions! contact@interestofjustice.org