U.S. rejects WHO pandemic pact, demands system reboot as global agreement passes amid controversy

• The Trump administration formally withdrew from the WHO, criticizing it as bureaucratic and politically compromised. The U.S. rejected the WHO’s Pandemic Agreement, citing failures in transparency and reform after COVID-19.
• HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. accused the WHO of promoting misinformation about COVID-19’s origins (e.g., dismissing lab-leak theories) and prioritizing corporate interests over public accountability. The agreement’s vaccine-sharing mandates (20% for poorer nations) were labeled as reinforcing past dysfunctions.
• Critics argue the treaty risks undermining national sovereignty by pressuring countries to align with global health directives, including fast-tracked vaccine approvals. While the WHO denies imposing mandates, skeptics warn it could erode local decision-making and medical autonomy.
• The U.S. withdrawal deprives the WHO of $900 million annually, threatening its operations. Proponents admit funding gaps could cripple the treaty’s Pathogen Access and Benefit Sharing (PABS) system, designed for equitable treatment distribution.
• The rejection signals a fractured multilateral system, with some nations abstaining or seeking alternative organizations. The WHO’s future hinges on whether it can address distrust, reform its ties to Big Pharma and balance cooperation with sovereignty before the next pandemic.

As the World Health Organization (WHO) finalized a historic Pandemic Agreement intended to “strengthen global pandemic preparedness,” the U.S. government, under President Donald Trump’s second term, delivered a pointed rejection of the deal. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. urged a “reboot” of global health institutions, casting the WHO as a bureaucratic and politically compromised entity following the Trump administration’s official withdrawal from the organization. The move has deepened a rift between the U.S. and its international health partners, while fueling debates about sovereignty, transparency and the lessons of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Pandemic Agreement, formally adopted by the 78th World Health Assembly on May 20, aims to ‘standardize global cooperation’ in responding to future pandemics. However, the U.S. decision to exit the WHO — one year after President Trump signed an executive order formally ending U.S. membership — has cast doubt on its implementation. Kennedy called the agreement a “failure to reform” systemic flaws highlighted during the COVID-19 pandemic, accusing the WHO of kowtowing to political pressures and failing to address its past missteps.

U.S. rejection highlights WHO criticisms

Kennedy’s remarks, delivered via video at the WHO Assembly, drew widespread attention for their blunt critique of the global body. “The WHO has become mired in bureaucratic bloat, entrenched paradigms, conflicts of interest and international power politics,” he said, adding that the U.S. would no longer participate in an organization that “forgot its accountability to citizens over corporate or transnational interests.”

The focal point of dissent was the Pandemic Agreement, or WHO CA+, which mandates member nations to reserve 20% of pandemic vaccine and treatment supplies for distribution to poorer countries during emergencies. While WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus hailed the deal as a “victory for public health,” Kennedy labeled it a gamble: “It locks in all the dysfunctions of the WHO pandemic response.”

The U.S. withdrawal stems in part from how the WHO mishandled the early stages of the pandemic by deferring to Chinese authorities, including promoting the Wuhan wet market theory over a lab-leak origin. Kennedy reiterated this stance during his address, stating the WHO had promoted “the fiction that COVID originated from bats or pangolins,” rather than acknowledging evidence of a potential leak from the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

Sovereignty and subversion: Critics row over Pandemic Agreement details

Despite assurances from the WHO that the Pandemic Agreement contains no provisions to “direct, order, or impose requirements” on member nations — including vaccine mandates or lockdowns — health freedom advocates argue the text still risks overreach. Dan Astin-Gregory of Free Humanity acknowledged the inclusion of sovereignty protections as a “subtle victory” but warned the pact perpetuates problematic frameworks. “It normalizes the WHO’s dysfunctional approach,” he said, referencing the organization’s reliance on pharmaceutical partnerships and lack of accountability.

Epidemiologist Nicolas Hulscher, writing in a Substack post, described provisions for equitable vaccine distribution as a “pressure” tactic to align national laws with global directives. He also cautioned the agreement could enable “fast-track approvals” for experimental vaccines — a process widely criticized during the rollout of mRNA shots in 2020–2021. Dr. Maria Hubmer-Mogg, a physician and activist, added that the WHO’s one-size-fits-all approach disregards localized health needs and undermines doctor-patient relationships.

Proponents of the agreement, however, argue its importance lies in its structure. The deal, they say, ensures countries collaborate on sharing virus data and resources, while the new Pathogen Access and Benefit Sharing (PABS) system aims to accelerate equitable distribution of treatments. Suerie Moon, a global health governance expert, conceded finance remains a major challenge: with the U.S. withholding contributions, “the Achilles heel is funding to make these systems work.” The WHO has already instituted budget cuts amid anticipated losses of $900 million annually without U.S. dues.

The road ahead: A fractured multilateral framework?

The U.S. rejection of the WHO CA+ has introduced uncertainty into global health cooperation, even as the Trump administration vows to boost pandemic preparedness domestically. Kennedy pledged increased focus on addressing chronic diseases — a shift from past priorities — but offered little clarity on how the U.S. will engage with global health crises without WHO collaboration.

Beate Sibylle Pfeil, a German attorney, noted the 11 abstentions during the agreement’s adoption signals a weakening consensus. “States are now critical of the WHO, but still hesitant to speak up,” she said. Meanwhile, Astin-Gregory speculated the U.S. withdrawal could catalyze alternatives: “We might see a parallel organization emerging from the bottom up—a competitive pressure to reform or replace the WHO.”

The Pathogen Access and Benefit Sharing system negotiations, due for finalization over the next two years, will test the agreement’s viability. Independent journalist James Roguski viewed this phase as an opportunity to scrutinize ties to Big Pharma: “It’s an attempt to expand manufacturing and distribution networks for pharmaceutical giants,” he said.

A global health crossroads: Rebuilding trust amid divided priorities

As the Pandemic Agreement proceeds toward ratification, the world faces a pivotal moment in how it confronts future crises. With the U.S. — historically a health aid linchpin — on the sidelines, the WHO’s future remains uncertain. For Kennedy, the answer is systemic overhaul: “The failures of COVID demand more than tweaks.” Yet without U.S. participation or resources, the pact’s effectiveness hinges on whether fractured global politics can yield a unified resolution.

The next steps will shape both global health architecture and the much-debated balance between international cooperation and national sovereignty. With partisan lines and distrust entrenched, one truth remains: The next pandemic will test both the agreement and the institutions built to withstand it.

Sources for this article include:

ChildrensHealthDefense.org

HHS.gov

WHO.int

WhiteHouse.gov