The world’s health, the people’s choice: U.S. rejects WHO amendments to protect liberty

• U.S. rejects WHO’s International Health Regulations amendments to preserve sovereignty.
• Officials cite risks of global surveillance, censorship and unchecked WHO power.
• Amendments include expanded WHO authority, compliance committees and digital health tracking.
• Kennedy and Rubio oppose mandates seen as undermining American liberties and transparency.
• Dec. 1 deadline looms for other nations’ rejection amid growing global sovereignty concerns.

On July 18, the U.S. government formally rejected WHO amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR), marking a bold stance to safeguard national sovereignty and individual liberties amid global calls for expanded pandemic governance. Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced the decision, arguing the IHR changes risked creating a “technocratic control system” under the guise of pandemic preparedness, with provisions for surveillance, censorship and centralized authority over health policy. This rejection aligns with the Trump administration’s 2020 withdrawal from the WHO but diverges from the Biden administration’s push for similar IHR reforms.

Why the U.S. rejected the IHR amendments

The IHR amendments, adopted by the WHO in 2024 but not yet binding on the U.S., grant the agency expanded authority to declare emergencies, access digital health data and enforce compliance through a new global committee. Kennedy condemned the rules as a “Trojan horse” for “global governance” that would perpetuate “narrative management,” stifling dissent and empowering unelected officials. Citing the WHO’s failures during the COVID-19 pandemic, including China’s influence over data transparency, critics warned the amendments risk corruption and overreach.

The U.S. objections highlight three core concerns:

• Surveillance expansion: Mandatory sharing of personal health data and digital health IDs.
• Censorship of dissent: Labeling opposing views as misinformation to suppress medical debate.
• Loss of sovereignty: Binding treaties requiring compliance with WHO mandates on policy.

Kennedy’s video statement framed the stakes starkly: “Do we want a future where every person… [is] under surveillance at all times?”

A saga of sovereignty: From Trump’s exit to Biden’s U-turn

The U.S. stance echoes former President Donald Trump’s 2020 decision to withdraw from the WHO, a move he called “prudent” due to corruption allegations. However, the Biden administration reversed course, initially supporting IHR reforms that sought greater global collaboration on health security. Senate Republicans, including Rubio, pushed back, accusing the WHO of “politicized” pandemic responses.

The July 2025 rejection underscores the ongoing feud between pro-sovereignty advocates and proponents of global health frameworks. Critics like Reggie Littlejohn of the Sovereignty Coalition argue the IHR changes mimic China’s surveillance state, where health data and biometric tracking are tools of control.

WHO’s defense: “We’re here to save lives, not control governments”

WHO Director-General Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus rejected claims of coercion, stating on social media that member states, not the WHO, retain authority over domestic policy. “The WHO’s role is advisory, not directive,” he wrote, emphasizing its mission to “save lives” through “science, not mandates.” However, U.S. officials counter that ambiguous terms like “equitable access” in the IHR amendments enable overreach, pressuring nations to adopt measures like vaccine passports under global pressure.

The clock ticks: Governments decide by Dec. 1

The U.S.’s rejection comes as a Dec. 1, deadline approaches for all 194 WHO member states to accept or reject the amendments. Activists worldwide, including groups Anti-Globalist International, are rallying to block the proposals, warning of a “health security state” built on data collection and censorship.

For now, Kennedy’s message is clear: “Americans’ speech, privacy and liberties will not be dictated by unelected bureaucrats.”

 A crossroads for global health and freedom

The U.S. rejection of the WHO IHR amendments signals a turning point in the debate over sovereignty versus global governance. While the WHO insists it seeks only to save lives through coordination, critics fear a slippery slope toward centralized control over health — and by extension, daily life. As nations weigh their choices, the Dec. 1 deadline will test whether the international community prioritizes localized democracy over “ pandemic preparedness” at all costs.

Sources for this article include:

LifeSiteNews.com

HHS.gov

TheHill.com