World Health Pandemic Reforms are back in the spotlight as President Trump’s administration, on July 19, 2025, announced that the U.S. will exit the recent health crisis response changes implemented by the World Health Organization. Upon returning to the White House on January 20, 2025, Trump initiated the U.S. withdrawal from the WHO, set to complete by January 2026. However, critics argue that the World Health Pandemic Reforms adopted last year remain legally binding on member states—including the U.S., which is still officially a member at this point.
Also by leaving the WHO the US is going against what many see as the organization’s important role in global health security. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. which at the time were very public in their criticism of international pandemic responses Kennedy in fact a long time vaccine skeptic put out a joint statement against the reforms.
They reported that the amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR) which form the legal structure of global disease control intervention — which they said was Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. which were very public in their critique of international pandemic policies Kennedy a long time vaccine skeptic issued a joint statement against the reforms.
They put forth that the amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR) which set the framework for global disease control intervention posed “unwarranted interference” with the US’ sovereign right to determine its own health policies. Also Rubio and Kennedy put forward the issue of protection for Americans’ speech, privacy, and personal liberties from international mandates. They formally broke rank with the U.S. on these amendments which they said the WHO’s reforms risked at large compromising American freedom and sovereignty.
The 2024 amendments which saw wide international support at the World Health Assembly in Geneva put forth better defined terms for what is a pandemic emergency, also we see which info sharing between countries and the WHO has been improved upon. Also included was a commitment to solidarity and equity which puts into play support for developing countries’ issues in future health crises. Also in these changes we see the introduction of digital health documentation which in turn will better help to track disease spread across the globe.
Proponents of the changes see this as large steps toward a more unified and efficient global approach to pandemic response which is very much needed in the wake of the COVID-19 crisis that brought to light the world’s health care weaknesses. Despite that which was put forth at the global level the U.S. had issues with some elements of the put forth amendments. Rubio and Kennedy had issue with the language which they saw as ambiguous and too wide in scope which in turn they felt opened the door for political play in health responses at a national level instead of what they saw as the which should have been put forth quick science based actions.
Also they brought to light that which they saw as the World Health Organization’s vulnerability to political influence and that which they put forward was mainly at the hand of China which they felt played into the WHO’s impartiality and effectiveness in it’s pandemic response. Also brought out was that the amendments may put in play international policies which in turn infringe on American civil liberties which include freedom of speech and privacy protections.
WHO Director General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus put forth that the US decision to turn down the amendments was a regrettable one and also reported that the put forth changes which do in fact respect member states’ sovereignty. He also reported that WHO does not have the health care issue to implement lock downs or other public health restrictions in to countries.
Ghebreyesus defended the organization’s neutral role and reported that WHO works with all countries to improve public health care results globally which in turn refutes claims of political bias. The Trump administration put forth a consistent view which was that of wider conservative doubt toward multi lateral institutions and agreements which they saw as an infringement of national sovereignty.
During the COVID 19 pandemic we saw interventions like lock downs and vaccine mandates which played out very politically in the US and which gave rise to right wing political opposition. The US government’s leave of the WHO and rejection of the pandemic treaty and regulations plays into this doubt, which plays out in terms of concern that we are hand over control of health care policy to international bodies.
President Trump’s actions which included the 2020 announcement of the US leaving the WHO which was later reversed by President Biden has been followed through with the 2025 announcement which in turn has reinforced a US which puts forward a strategy of putting national interest first in global health issues. In May 2025 the US stood out when WHO member states passed a separate international agreement which put in place measures to improve global pandemic preparation and response.
Although the treaty received almost universal support, the US did not join in, which they attributed to issues of vaccine development intellectual property protection and other questions of sovereignty. Past US officials which include former Secretary of State Antony Blinken reported to have supported the changes as a step in the right direction, but the present Trump administration’s rejection is a large scale retreat from US engagement in such global initiatives which they had been a part of.
Overall the US has rejected which the World Health Organization put forth for pandemic response which is a part of a larger retreat from the international health care governance which we see to which the U.S is out of. Critics put forth that this is a step which will in fact reduce the U.S’s role as a global health leader which in turn will complicate access to very important health data during crises and will weaken what little we have of a collective ability to handle cross border health crises.
Proponents of the U.S position put forth that which they see is the protection of civil liberties and a stand against what they see as unwarranted foreign intervention in health care policy. This issue brings to the fore the great struggle between national autonomy and international work which in health threats which in fact require a multi lateral approach. Also see ref 123.
Visit for more news: WhyTrends
