The Trump administration announced Friday that it is rejecting recent amendments to the World Health Organisation’s (WHO) pandemic response framework, arguing that the changes infringe on U.S. sovereignty.
Although the United States began its formal withdrawal from the WHO immediately after Donald Trump returned to office on January 20, the State Department emphasized that the language of the amended agreement—reached last year—would still have imposed obligations on the U.S.
In a joint statement, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.—a longtime vaccine critic—said the revisions “risk unwarranted interference with our national sovereign right to make health policy.”
“We will put Americans first in all our actions and we will not tolerate international policies that infringe on Americans’ speech, privacy or personal liberties,” they declared.
The U.S. officials formally rejected a series of amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR), a global legal framework for responding to public health threats, that had been adopted at the World Health Assembly in Geneva last year.
WHO reacts
Reacting to the U.S. move, WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said in a post on X, “We regret the US decision to reject the amendments.” He clarified that the updates to the IHR “are clear about member states’ sovereignty” and emphasized that the WHO has no authority to enforce lockdowns or similar mandates.
One of the key elements of the revised regulations was a new commitment to “solidarity and equity,” including the formation of a group focused on addressing the specific needs of developing nations during global health emergencies.
Member countries have until Saturday to formally raise objections to the amendments. Meanwhile, opposition to the changes has also surfaced in countries like Britain and Australia, where conservative groups and vaccine skeptics have criticized the WHO despite both nations being governed by left-leaning administrations.
The amendments emerged after member states failed to reach consensus on a broader pandemic treaty. While most nations signed on to a global health agreement this past May, the U.S. opted out, citing its exit from the WHO.
Under the Biden administration, the U.S. had participated in the May-June 2024 negotiations but ultimately withheld support, primarily due to concerns over safeguarding intellectual property rights related to vaccine innovation.
Former Secretary of State Antony Blinken had welcomed the amendments as a positive step forward. However, Rubio and Kennedy, in their statement, argued that the reforms “fail to adequately address the WHO’s susceptibility to the political influence and censorship — most notably from China — during outbreaks.”
In response, Tedros defended the organization, saying the WHO “is impartial and works with all countries to improve people’s health.”
