When a joint assertion comes from each the U.S. Secretary of Well being and Human Companies and the Secretary of State, it’s value paying consideration. On July 18, 2025, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Marco Rubio delivered a proper rejection of the World Well being Group’s (WHO) 2024 amendments to the Worldwide Well being Rules (IHR).1
The explanation? The adjustments would give an unelected worldwide physique the ability to form nationwide public well being choices — together with pandemic declarations, digital well being documentation, and so-called “equitable entry” to medical merchandise — with out democratic oversight or public debate.
This isn’t nearly bureaucratic language. These amendments straight influence your proper to privateness, freedom of motion, and management over your private well being choices. The up to date guidelines embody obscure however far-reaching phrases that might permit the WHO to intervene with nationwide emergency response measures, compel governments to implement digital well being surveillance instruments, and facilitate narrative management beneath the guise of danger communication.
The language is deliberately broad — sufficient to authorize sweeping actions whereas avoiding accountability. And in contrast to WHO membership, these amendments would have been binding even when a nation had exited the group altogether. Italy, Israel, and Austria have additionally rejected or objected to the amendments. Their actions mirror the U.S. stance: well being choices want to stay inside nationwide borders and be ruled by constitutional protections, not dictated by world bureaucrats.
In every case, officers warned of harmful overreach, unchecked censorship, and the erosion of civil liberties beneath the pretense of public well being. Understanding how these amendments had been crafted, what they try to implement, and why nations are pushing again is vital. The subsequent part breaks down what the U.S. rejection means in sensible phrases — and what it alerts to your future autonomy within the face of worldwide well being mandates.
Bureaucrats Overseas Tried to Rewrite American Well being Coverage — however Failed
U.S. leaders have formally rejected WHO’s expanded authority through 2024 amendments to the IHR. These adjustments, in accordance with the joint assertion from Kennedy Jr. and Rubio, would have allowed the WHO to bypass American regulation and impose well being directives, together with lockdowns and vaccine documentation, with out approval from Congress or the American folks.2
•The amendments aimed to centralize emergency choices beneath WHO management — The rejected amendments gave the WHO energy to outline and reply to what it calls a “Public Well being Emergency of Worldwide Concern.”
The up to date language would have allowed the WHO to intervene in a rustic’s home affairs primarily based on subjective interpretations of worldwide solidarity or well being fairness. This might’ve included the flexibility to affect pandemic declarations and responses in ways in which straight override nationwide public well being businesses and native insurance policies.
•Officers warned that obscure phrases open the door to censorship — In response to the joint assertion, the terminology within the amendments was broad and undefined — phrases like “equitable entry” and “danger communication” had been left open to interpretation. In apply, this implies world officers may have justified censorship or surveillance beneath the excuse of controlling misinformation or making certain compliance with “fairness” objectives.
The U.S. response emphasised that this sort of ambiguity undermines scientific debate and permits politically motivated directives to masquerade as public well being steerage. By embedding subjective language into binding agreements, worldwide our bodies just like the WHO create a framework that narrows acceptable discourse and enforces medical compliance with minimal oversight. That is how coverage turns into a mechanism for affect, not safety.
•Digital well being monitoring was a serious crimson flag — The rejected language additionally inspired nations to undertake digital well being paperwork, together with vaccine passports and well being ID techniques. These instruments would’ve facilitated worldwide monitoring of people’ medical data and well being standing, linking entry to journey, work, or providers to WHO-defined compliance requirements.
The U.S. authorities made clear it “won’t tolerate worldwide insurance policies that infringe on People’ speech, privateness, or private liberties.”
•The U.S. criticized the WHO’s poor monitor file throughout outbreaks like COVID — The joint assertion referred to as out the WHO’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic, citing its susceptibility to “political affect and censorship — most notably from China.”
Officers careworn that entrusting the WHO with extra management after this historical past of failed transparency and accountability could be irresponsible. Somewhat than bettering emergency responses, the amendments risked repeating the identical communication breakdowns and knowledge suppression that marred the worldwide COVID response.
•This choice preserves U.S. medical autonomy — In response to the assertion, “public well being coverage continues to be dictated by the values and can of the American folks, not unelected world actors.”
The rejection ensures that Americans retain constitutional protections and are usually not topic to directives issued by a global company that doesn’t reply to them. By refusing to just accept the brand new language, U.S. well being coverage stays beneath the management of state and federal businesses, not bureaucrats in Geneva.
Kennedy Slams WHO’s Censorship Agenda and Digital Surveillance Push
As reported by The Hill, Kennedy Jr. warned that the newly proposed amendments to the IHR “open the door to the form of narrative administration, propaganda, and censorship that we noticed through the COVID-19 pandemic.”3 That form of management doesn’t simply have an effect on officers — it reaches into your life, dictating what info you hear, what platforms permit, and the way you’re allowed to talk about well being.
•Kennedy made it clear: the amendments undermine civil liberties — “The US can cooperate with different nations with out jeopardizing our civil liberties, with out undermining our Structure, and with out ceding away America’s treasured sovereignty,” Kennedy acknowledged in a video posted to X (previously Twitter).4
This isn’t summary coverage — it’s about whether or not unelected officers have the authority to limit your freedom to journey, collect, communicate, or make medical choices throughout a declared emergency.
•The WHO has no energy to mandate, however the amendments would shift that stability — WHO Director-Common Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus publicly claimed that the group “has by no means had the ability to mandate lockdowns, journey restrictions, or some other related measures.” Whereas technically true beneath present guidelines, the brand new language would have pressured governments to adjust to WHO-coordinated responses, together with mandates and motion restrictions, with out democratic consent.
•The amendments may drive nations to create danger communication techniques — Kennedy additionally took purpose at a regulation that might require member nations to develop “danger communication” techniques. Whereas the time period sounds impartial, Kennedy defined this language is code for info management: techniques that management narratives, restrict dissent, and implement compliance with official positions.
•Kennedy’s rejection ties again to real-world harms seen throughout COVID — The article drew a direct line between the proposed guidelines and the suppression of debate seen within the final pandemic. In response to Kennedy, the world already witnessed what occurs when centralized well being narratives dominate media, shut down dissent, and silence clinicians who query official doctrine. Locking that system into worldwide regulation would repeat and worsen these errors.
Different Nations Joined the US in Refusing IHR Amendments
Austria, Italy, and Israel all took formal motion to dam WHO’s energy seize. Their strikes weren’t symbolic. Every took authorized or parliamentary motion to halt the WHO’s expanded emergency powers earlier than the July 19, 2025 deadline.
Throughout all three nations, a typical theme emerged: well being coverage must be made by native officers who’re accountable to their folks, not by distant bureaucrats. For residents of these nations, meaning their governments preserved the flexibility to make native well being choices with out worldwide interference.5
•Austria lodged a authorized objection to purchase time and protect autonomy — Austria’s Everlasting Mission to the United Nations in Geneva filed a authorized objection to the IHR amendments on July 17, 2025, simply two days earlier than the deadline.6 This objection ensures the amendments received’t apply in Austria till the nationwide parliament has formally accepted them.
In different phrases, Austrians now have a window to stress lawmakers and block the adjustments completely. The Ministry of Well being confirmed that the rejection was filed to uphold the Austrian Structure — not as a formality, however to take care of sovereignty over nationwide well being coverage.
•Italy flatly rejected the amendments, bypassing future enforcement — Italy’s Well being Minister Orazio Schillaci, with the backing of Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, formally declined the amendments on July 19.7 Their refusal wasn’t a conditional objection — it was a full rejection.
In response to translated excerpts from the Italian newspaper La Verità, the amendments would have given the WHO authority to difficulty binding suggestions on quarantines, motion restrictions, and provide chain administration with out consulting the Italian Parliament. Schillaci referred to as it an unacceptable breach of democracy and promised to defend residents from top-down directives that undermine constitutional rights.
•Israel’s management withdrew after months of inside evaluation — In a daring transfer, Israeli Well being Minister Uriel Bosso introduced that Israel wouldn’t undertake the brand new WHO laws.8 The choice got here after sustained lobbying from Knesset members, well being professionals, and authorized specialists.
Bosso defined that the treaty would give the WHO extreme affect over Israel’s nationwide choices, particularly in areas like protection, economics, and schooling. His last assertion made the stakes clear: “This can be a advanced and regarded choice that’s supposed to guard the pursuits of the State of Israel and expresses our full duty for public well being.”
How You Can Push Again and Defend Your Rights
In the event you’re apprehensive about shedding your say in private well being choices to worldwide businesses, you’re not overreacting — you’re responding to an actual shift in energy. The 2024 IHR amendments weren’t simply technical updates. They had been written to centralize management, diminish nationwide sovereignty, and provides unelected world actors the flexibility to form your nation’s pandemic response with out your enter. That’s not a distant risk. It’s already on monitor to grow to be binding coverage in many of the world.
However this isn’t nearly politics — it’s about defending your skill to make knowledgeable, voluntary well being choices for your self and your loved ones. Whether or not you’re a mother or father, a enterprise proprietor, or somebody who values constitutional protections, you may have instruments proper now to make a distinction. Listed below are 5 steps I like to recommend to take motion:
1.Discover out the place your nation stands on the 2024 amendments — Begin by checking whether or not your authorities has submitted a proper rejection or reservation. Most nations had till July 19, 2025 to choose out. If no motion was taken by that date, the amendments will grow to be binding on September 19, 2025.
Nevertheless, when you’re in Iran, the Netherlands, New Zealand, or Slovakia, your authorities has till September 19, 2026 to decide. Which means there’s nonetheless time to behave regionally — push your representatives to reject the amendments earlier than that deadline passes.
2.Have interaction your elected officers straight — Don’t depend on petitions or mass emails. Decide up the cellphone, write a bodily letter, or request a gathering along with your native consultant. Ask them the place they stand on ceding well being authority to the WHO. Be clear: you anticipate your nation to retain full management over nationwide well being emergencies, together with choices about lockdowns, quarantine, and private medical freedom. Maintain them accountable by documenting their responses and sharing them publicly.
3.Educate others who nonetheless don’t know that is taking place — Most individuals don’t know these amendments exist or what they imply. Discuss to your pals, household, neighbors, and coworkers. Use clear language — keep away from authorized or technical jargon. Clarify that this isn’t about rejecting well being collaboration, however about sustaining constitutional authority and knowledgeable consent. Private conversations are nonetheless essentially the most highly effective instrument for shifting public consciousness.
4.Share examples from nations which have already acted — Just like the U.S., Italy, Israel, and Austria all formally rejected or legally objected to the 2024 amendments. Their choices had been grounded in defending civil liberties, nationwide decision-making, and freedom from censorship. Use their language when speaking to others — it’s direct, affordable, and primarily based on rule of regulation. Referencing these nations makes it clear that this isn’t fringe or excessive — it’s accountable governance.
5.Arrange regionally — begin small, however begin now — In the event you’re a part of a church, faculty board, city corridor, or enterprise community, use these platforms to lift consciousness and construct momentum. You don’t must host a rally — begin with a dialogue group, a Q&An evening, or a one-page reality sheet you hand out. The objective is to construct knowledgeable communities who’re able to advocate for insurance policies that mirror their values — not the agendas of unaccountable worldwide businesses.
You’re not powerless. The legal guidelines that govern your well being ought to come from these you choose, not these you’ve by no means heard of. That is your probability to defend that precept. Take step one, and assist others do the identical.
FAQs Concerning the 2024 IHR Amendments
Q: What are the 2024 IHR amendments, and why are they controversial?
A: The 2024 IHR amendments had been adopted by the WHO to increase its authority over world well being emergencies. These adjustments give unelected worldwide officers energy to affect nationwide choices on lockdowns, vaccine mandates, and digital well being surveillance — with out consent from native populations or legislative oversight.
Q: Has the U.S. accepted or rejected the IHR amendments?
A: The U.S. formally rejected the 2024 IHR amendments on July 18, 2025, in a joint assertion by Secretary of Well being and Human Companies Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Secretary of State Marco Rubio. Their choice was primarily based on defending U.S. constitutional rights, medical autonomy, and freedom from worldwide mandates.
Q: Which different nations have rejected or objected to the amendments?
A: Italy, Austria, and Israel additionally took motion to dam the amendments earlier than the July 19, 2025, deadline. Italy issued a full rejection, Austria filed a authorized objection to forestall enforcement with out parliamentary approval, and Israel withdrew from adoption solely following inside authorities evaluation.
Q: Are the amendments binding for nations that didn’t formally reject them?
A: Sure. For nations that didn’t submit a proper rejection or reservation by July 19, 2025, the amendments are scheduled to grow to be binding on September 19, 2025. Nevertheless, 4 nations — Iran, the Netherlands, New Zealand, and Slovakia — have till September 19, 2026, to choose out because of their prior rejection of the 2022 IHR amendments.
Q: What can I do if I disagree with the WHO’s rising authority over well being choices?
A: Take motion by studying your nation’s official place, contacting lawmakers, educating your neighborhood, sharing examples from nations that rejected the amendments, and organizing regionally. These steps assist make sure that public well being coverage stays beneath democratic management, not dictated by worldwide businesses.