US Pulls Out of WHO Pandemic Response Amendments, Citing Sovereignty and Personal Freedom Concerns
WASHINGTON, July 19 — In a decision that has sparked strong reactions globally, the United States, under the leadership of President Donald Trump, has officially rejected a set of changes to the World Health Organization’s (WHO) international pandemic response framework. The move is being framed by the administration as a firm stand for national sovereignty and individual liberties.
The amendments in question—agreed upon during last year’s World Health Assembly—aimed to strengthen global coordination during health emergencies, including commitments to solidarity, equity, and support for vulnerable nations. But for Washington, the updated International Health Regulations crossed a line.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio, along with Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.—a known skeptic of vaccine mandates—voiced strong opposition. “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 in a joint statement, signaling a dramatic departure from international health diplomacy.
According to the State Department, even though the US began its withdrawal from the WHO upon Trump’s return to office on January 20, the updated pandemic rules would have still been binding had the administration not acted.
The decision drew swift disappointment from WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus. “We regret the US decision to reject the amendments,” he said on X, previously Twitter. Tedros emphasized that the revised regulations “are clear about member states’ sovereignty,” noting that the WHO has no authority to enforce lockdowns or mandate policies.
While many nations embraced the amendments—especially those looking for more equitable treatment in future health crises—others like the US, Britain, and Australia have seen internal pushback. Public campaigns led by conservative groups and vaccine skeptics have stirred fears of global overreach.
The United States’ rejection stands in contrast to its previous stance under Secretary Antony Blinken, who called the amendments a positive step forward. This shift reflects a broader ideological pivot within the American leadership regarding global cooperation.
Rubio and Kennedy further justified the withdrawal by citing concerns over the WHO’s alleged vulnerability to political manipulation, “most notably from China,” during past outbreaks.
Tedros, however, stood firm, reiterating the WHO’s commitment to impartiality. “We work with all countries to improve people’s health,” he said.
As the deadline for reservations on the amendments approaches, the world watches closely. The US, once a key player in global health cooperation, now takes a more isolated path—one rooted in autonomy, but not without consequences.