The US is getting out of a WHO agreement that allows for accelerated development of experimental vaccines, censorship of dissent, and global surveillance systems.
By Nicolas Hulscher, MPH
On May 19, 2025, the World Health Organization (WHO) took a historic but deeply disturbing step: Member States, through Committee A of the World Health Assembly, formally approved the WHO Pandemic Convention – a comprehensive global treaty that is now set to be formally adopted at the plenary session on Tuesday, May 20.
This agreement, hailed by WHO leaders as a groundbreaking tool for achieving “fairness,” “solidarity,” and “science-based” pandemic control, contains worrying provisions that undermine national sovereignty, institutionalize emergency response measures, and designate WHO as the central coordinating authority for future health crises.
Why it’s important for the United States to leave the WHO
On January 20, 2025, President Donald Trump signed an executive order withdrawing the United States from the WHO, citing the organization’s failure during the COVID-19 pandemic, its lack of reform commitments, and excessive U.S. funding. The move halted all future payments to the WHO, ended U.S. participation in the pandemic agreement negotiations, and recalled U.S. staff. The full withdrawal will take effect on January 22, 2026.
This withdrawal protects the United States from legally enforcing the treaty’s extensive obligations.
The main concerns in the WHO pandemic agreement are:
WHO’s central control puts pressure on national policies
While Article 3 affirms the sovereignty of states, the treaty, adopted under Article 19 of the WHO Constitution, creates legally binding obligations upon ratification (Articles 31-33). It gives WHO the authority to coordinate a global response to the pandemic, including:
- global system for access to pathogens and benefit-sharing (Article 12)
- global supply chain and logistics network (Article 13)
- pandemic financing mechanism (Article 18)
- national pandemic plans, surveillance and communication strategies (Articles 4, 6, 16)
Countries must align their national policies with these WHO-led systems and increasingly subject their decisions to international influence.
Emergency vaccines with accelerated approval
The agreement promotes accelerated approval and emergency use listing with the WHO (Article 8.2). It requires harmonization of laws and requires manufacturers to donate 20% of their production to the WHO – 10% of which as a donation (Article 12.6). It promotes the global use of experimental injections.
While the treaty encourages mass distribution, it does not include an obligation to compensate for vaccine damages. Resolution OP15.10 only requires WHO to develop “non-binding recommendations” on the legal risks of novel vaccines – the responsibility lies with countries.
Vaccination Passport and Digital Tracking Fund
Article 6.3 calls for the development of interoperable national health systems. Article 8.4 promotes regulatory trust, Article 16 calls for comprehensive risk communication and “pandemic competence.” Although the word “vaccination passport” is not mentioned, this structure lays the foundation for global digital surveillance systems based on vaccination and behavior.
Legally binding on ratifying states
The agreement was adopted under Article 19 of the WHO Constitution (Resolution OP1) and will enter into force once 60 countries have ratified it (Articles 31-33). It then obliges countries to participate in WHO-led coordination and response systems in the event of declared pandemics – even if national law contradicts this.
Why is it dangerous?
- National governments are forced to adapt their legislation to global demands.
- Experimental products are being introduced around the world without thorough safety testing.
- Scientific criticism can be accused of being “misinformation.”
- Part of the population may be forced into treatment – without any guarantee of compensation.
Summary
The US withdrawal from the WHO was a strategic and decisive step to protect sovereignty and medical choice. Other countries should follow suit before submitting to a global mandate that replaces democratic processes and individual freedom with centralized healthcare management.
