Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said today the U.S. would not agree to sign over authority in health emergencies “to an unelected international organization that could order lockdowns, travel restrictions or any other measures that it sees fit.” The amendments take effect for all signatories July 19.
JULY 18, 2025
5156 PAGEVIEWS
RSSREPUBLISH
PRINTSHARE
Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Secretary of State Marco Rubio today announced that the U.S. is formally rejecting the controversial amendments to the World Health Organization’s (WHO) International Health Regulations (IHR).
The revisions would allow the WHO “to order global lockdowns, travel restrictions, or any other measures it sees fit to respond to nebulous ‘potential public health risks,’” the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) said in a press release.
The amendments — passed at last year’s World Health Assembly and set to take effect July 19 for all signatories — would have been binding in the U.S., even though the U.S. withdrew from the WHO earlier this year.
While the proposals were watered down compared to earlier drafts, they contained provisions that would have given the WHO unprecedented authority.
In a video released today, Kennedy said the amendments were “a step in the wrong direction” that pose a threat to national sovereignty and facilitate the rollout of a global surveillance infrastructure and digital vaccine passports.
Kennedy said:
“The new regulations employ extremely broad language that gives the WHO unprecedented power. They require countries to establish systems of risk communications so that the WHO can implement unified public messaging globally. That opens the door to the kind of narrative management and propaganda and censorship that we saw during the COVID pandemic.”
Sayer Ji, co-founder of Stand for Health Freedom and chair of the Global Wellness Forum, said the rejection of the amendments is “a defining moment in human history” that symbolizes the rejection of a “worldview that reduces human beings to data points and treats constitutional protections as inconvenient obstacles to be circumvented.”
The rejection “sends a clarion call to the world that health freedom and national sovereignty remain non-negotiable principles that cannot be sacrificed on the altar of technocratic expediency,” Ji said.
According to the joint statement, the U.S. notified the WHO of its formal rejection of the amendments today. In his video, Kennedy said the U.S. was rejecting the amendments “not only on behalf of our own citizens, but the whole world.”
Dr. Meryl Nass, founder of Door to Freedom, agreed. She called today’s move an “important” step to rebut amendments that “clearly were designed as a pathway to global governance.”
According to independent journalist James Roguski, the U.S. is the second country to reject the amendments, after Israel.
Valerie Borek, policy director for Stand for Health Freedom, credited the health freedom movement’s efforts in defeating the amendments in the U.S. Borek said:
“Health freedom saw a big win with the rejection of the most recent IHR amendments by this administration. It’s a return to our Constitution, an acknowledgement that health decisions belong as close to home as possible, and shows the power of the movement.”
RFK Jr.: Amendments lay ‘groundwork for global medical surveillance’
The IHR provides “an overarching legal framework that defines countries’ rights and obligations in handling public health events and emergencies that have the potential to cross borders,” according to the WHO.
The existing IHR allows the WHO director-general to declare a public health emergency in any country without the consent of that country’s government, though it requires both sides to first attempt to reach an agreement.
Previous versions of the IHR have been in place since 1969. The current version was enacted in 2005, in the aftermath of SARS-CoV-1. It is one of only two binding treaties achieved by the WHO, the other being the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control.
HHS said the World Health Assembly passed the IHR amendments “through a rushed process lacking sufficient debate and public input.”
Kennedy highlighted several reasons for rejecting the amendments:
“Nations that accept the new regulations are signing over their power in health emergencies to an unelected international organization that could order lockdowns, travel restrictions or any other measures that it sees fit.
“In fact, it doesn’t even need to declare an emergency. Potential public health risks are enough for it to initiate action. If we’re going to give the WHO that much power, we should at least invite a thorough public debate.”
Kennedy said the amendments contain provisions relating to vaccine passports and the development of centralized medical databases.
“It lays the groundwork for global medical surveillance of every human being,” he said.
Kennedy also said the WHO’s response to COVID-19 showed that it shouldn’t be trusted with more power.
“During COVID, the WHO failed to enforce the International Health Regulations that were already in place for generations. China withheld critical information about the outbreak for at least a month, and faced no real consequences or criticism from WHO.
“These and other atrocities make one thing clear. We must strengthen national and local autonomy to hold global organizations in check and to restore a real balance of power underneath all the bureaucratic language.”
Dr. David Bell, a public health physician, biotech consultant and senior scholar at the Brownstone Institute, said Kennedy’s statement was “very rational and a refreshing change from the usual jargon-filled drivel that has been the main basis of support for the amendments.”
Bell said the main problem with the amendments is the “expansion of surveillance,” as they would be used to “fuel unfounded fear of pandemics and thereby become a lever for lockdowns and border closures and then mandated vaccination with mRNA vaccines.”
Nass said the amendments, even if weakened, still posed a threat to the global public. “They still strongly encourage nations to survey and censor their populations, and they provide a framework for more insidious global control in the future.”
Rubio said the amendments contained “vague and broad language,” which focuses on “political issues like solidarity, rather than rapid and effective actions.”
Rejection by U.S. ‘provides moral courage’ for other nations
In January, President Donald Trump issued an executive order to withdraw the U.S. from the WHO — a process which will be completed at the end of the year.
However, according to the HHS-State Department joint statement, “These amendments were set to become binding on the United States regardless of our withdrawal from the WHO.” This is because the IHR is considered a binding international treaty to which the U.S. is a signatory and which is listed in the State Department’s list of “Treaties in Force.”
“Membership of the IHR is separate from WHO. The U.S. is still a signatory to the IHR, just rejecting the new amendments,” Bell said.
In his video, Kennedy said that because the IHR is a legally binding treaty, it “bypasses the U.S. Senate, which plays a key role in ensuring major international commitments receive proper democratic oversight.”
According to Nass, other countries, including Argentina, may reject the IHR by the July 19 deadline. She said the WHO doesn’t announce which countries reject the amendments.
In February, Argentine President Javier Milei announced Argentina would follow the U.S. in withdrawing from the WHO. However, it is not clear whether Argentina will also reject the IHR amendments.
In 2023, the WHO’s World Health Assembly passed a separate, smaller set of amendments that last year were rejected by some countries, including New Zealand and Iran. It’s unclear if these countries will reject the new amendments.
Ji said that the U.S. rejection of the amendments “provides moral courage and political cover for other nations to reclaim their own sovereignty” and “undermines both the legitimacy and enforceability of the WHO’s attempted consolidation of power.”
Bell said more countries should consider rejecting the amendments:
“If other countries follow this, they lose nothing, just keep more control over their own resources when a single person, the WHO director general, decides a theoretical risk from a new viral variant is worth declaring an emergency.”
This article was funded by critical thinkers like you.
The Defender is 100% reader-supported. No corporate sponsors. No paywalls. Our writers and editors rely on you to fund stories like this that mainstream media won’t write.
RFK Jr.: ‘What’s at stake here is a vision for our future’
The amendments are separate from the WHO’s “Pandemic Agreement,” which the World Health Assembly passed in May. Eleven countries, including Israel, Italy, Poland, Russia, Iran and Slovakia, did not accept the agreement.
The Pandemic Agreement, widely referred to as the “pandemic treaty,” calls for “equitable and timely access to vaccines, therapeutics and diagnostics.” Members are required to provide 20% of their supplies of these products to the WHO during a pandemic for distribution to poorer countries.
Before the Pandemic Agreement goes into effect, WHO member states must finalize an annex for the establishment of a Pathogen Access and Benefit Sharing system — a process that may take up to two years. The agreement must then be ratified by 60 countries.
Speaking to the World Health Assembly by video in May, before the passage of the Pandemic Agreement, Kennedy said the WHO “has become mired in bureaucratic bloat.”
“We need to reboot the whole system,” he said.
In his video today, Kennedy said, “What’s at stake here is a vision for our future.” He said:
“Are we going to be subjects to a technocratic control system that uses health risks and pandemic preparedness as a Trojan horse to curtail basic democratic freedoms? Do we want a future where every person, every movement, every transaction and every human body is under surveillance at all times?”
Watch Kennedy’s statement here:
Related articles in The Defender
- WHO Passes ‘Watered-down’ IHR Amendments, Plans to Revisit Pandemic Treaty ‘Within a Year’
- ‘We Need to Reboot the Whole System’: RFK Jr. Addresses WHO Via Video as Member States Pass Global Pandemic Agreement
- Trump Orders U.S. to Withdraw From World Health Organization
- WHO Exhibiting Signs of ‘Desperation’ as New Zealand, Iran Reject Amendments to International Health Regulations
- ‘Death Sentence for Millions’: WHO, EU Launch New Global Vaccine Passport Initiative
Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D.
Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D., based in Athens, Greece, is a senior
Click this link for the original source of this article.
Author: brianpeckford
This content is courtesy of, and owned and copyrighted by, https://peckford42.wordpress.com and its author. This content is made available by use of the public RSS feed offered by the host site and is used for educational purposes only. If you are the author or represent the host site and would like this content removed now and in the future, please contact USSANews.com using the email address in the Contact page found in the website menu.
