BREAKING: US Snubs WHO Pandemic Rules, Sparking Global Alarm

The United States, under the Trump administration, has officially rejected critical pandemic preparedness reforms passed by the World Health Organization (WHO) in 2024.

These amendments, which strengthened the International Health Regulations (IHR), were designed to streamline global coordination in the post-COVID era, local media reports.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Health and Human Services chief Robert F. Kennedy jointly announced the decision this Friday, framing it as a move to “prevent international bureaucrats from shaping US domestic policies.”

Since the onset of COVID-19, the IHR amendments had aimed to enhance the globe’s ability to prevent, recognize, and rapidly respond to future pandemic threats.

Key changes included:

• a formal definition and protocol for declaring a pandemic emergency;
• improved channels for international data and sample sharing; and,
• provisions to ensure equitable access to medical tools and vaccines for low-income countries.

However, the US dismissal of these reforms points to deeper ideological divides.

Rubio and Kennedy criticized the amendments’ vague language.

They warned that ambiguous “terminology throughout the 2024 amendments is vague and broad, risking WHO‑coordinated international responses that focus on political issues like solidarity, rather than rapid and effective actions.”

Their statement also flagged concerns over imposed lockdowns, vaccine mandates, and compulsory digital health documents.

It asserted that such rules compromise national sovereignty, individual freedoms, privacy, and speech.

This action follows the US’s earlier announcement of plans to withdraw from the WHO entirely by January 2026, reflecting a broader unilateral approach to global governance pursued by the administration.

Conservative critics have long viewed multilateral oversight as an infringement on American sovereignty, particularly when it comes to public health policy.

But global health experts warn that pandemics transcend borders and require coordinated, multilateral responses.

In fact, the 2024 IHR amendments addressed many previously identified shortcomings.

For example, establishing a clear, legally binding definition of what constitutes a public health emergency, based on epidemiological data and cross-border risk, was viewed as essential for consistent global action.

The amended regulations also sought to enhance transparency, improve reporting timelines, and compel WHO to build a global database for digital health certifications.

These digital tools, while designed to facilitate internationally recognized COVID tests and vaccination records, were criticized by US officials who interpreted them as “compulsory digital health documents” imposed on sovereign nations.

Despite these provisions being voluntary and party-submitted, US officials insist they could “infringe on Americans’ speech, privacy, or personal liberties.”

During the COVID pandemic, digital health documents had been widely used around the world, and these amendments merely codified the practice, emphasizing shared responsibility rather than mandates.

The US’s absence in a separate WHO pandemic preparedness treaty adopted in May further underscores its growing disengagement.

This broader agreement, which remains separate from the IHR, also aims to strengthen coordination, equitable access to medical resources, and outbreak surveillance.

Critics argue that this withdrawal could leave the US, and by extension, the world, less prepared for future outbreaks.

COVID-19, which swept the globe in early 2020, remains the most devastating pandemic in recent memory.

It infected millions, killed nearly 70 million, and forced nations into repeated lockdowns and border closures.

Proponents of the WHO reforms contend that interconnected systems, from early detection to equitable distribution of vaccines, are essential to prevent similar human and economic costs.

They also note that regional responses often falter without a shared framework and global oversight.

The US response, officials say, reflects a commitment to “put Americans first in all our actions.”

Yet the move also raises questions about global solidarity, collective action, and long-term preparedness in an era of rising zoonotic threats, climate disruption, and geopolitical instability.

If the US forgoes cooperation on IHR, it may risk sidelining itself from vital data-sharing networks and allied decision-making.

Yet administration leaders argue prioritizing national sovereignty and individual liberty outweighs potential gains from multilateral commitments.

As policymakers, public health experts, and international leaders weigh the implications of this withdrawal, one question looms large: can the world build resilient defenses against the next pandemic without American leadership and trust in global systems?

The answer could determine how prepared—and united—the world will be when the next public health crisis strikes.

For Diaspora Digital Media Updates click on Whatsapp, or Telegram. For eyewitness accounts/ reports/ articles, write to: citizenreports@diasporadigitalmedia.com. Follow us on X (Fomerly Twitter) or Facebook