U.S. Intensifies Rebuke of WHO as Withdrawal Advances
In a pointed video address to delegates at this week’s World Health Organization (WHO) assembly, U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. delivered an unambiguous indictment of the agency’s newly adopted pandemic treaty, denouncing it as an overreaching bureaucratic imposition that threatens national sovereignty.
A Treaty Under Fire
The WHO’s pandemic preparedness treaty, ratified on May 20, 2025, purports to establish binding global standards for disease surveillance, data sharing, and equitable distribution of medical countermeasures.
Yet in Secretary Kennedy’s view, shared by many around the globe, the accord smacks of “bureaucratic overreach,” vesting the WHO with “unaccountable authority” that could override domestic health policies. He warned that member states signing on risk surrendering control of their own public-health decisions.
“Moribund” and “Self-Serving”
Kennedy branded the WHO a “moribund” institution, crippled by red tape and beholden to its most powerful backers. He castigated the agency for slow, inconsistent guidance during the COVID-19 pandemic, describing its response as “plagued by delay, confusion, and political maneuvering.”
On social media (X: @SecKennedy), he reiterated that the treaty “enshrines endless bureaucracy,” urging nations to reconsider their commitments lest they “hand over the keys to global health governance.”
Budget Impasse and Political Detachment
The United States, the WHO’s largest single donor, formally began its withdrawal on January 20, 2025.
Despite continuing to fund roughly $700 million annually until January 2026, U.S. policymakers have characterized the agency as fiscally irresponsible and detached from frontline realities.
Kennedy argued that every dollar diverted to the WHO’s sprawling bureaucracy represents money lost to local health systems in need of streamlined, results-driven support.
Erosion of National Sovereignty
Critics in Washington view the treaty as more than advisory: they see it as an instrument to bind domestic law to international diktat.
In a 2024 letter, Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey and 22 state counterparts warned the WHO was angling for “binding regulatory powers” far beyond its original charter.
Republicans in the U.S. Senate echoed those concerns in 2023, demanding full withdrawal to “protect America’s constitutional prerogatives.”
Global Unease
Diplomatic reactions in Geneva were conspicuously muted. A group of treaty signatories pushed unsuccessfully for stronger sovereignty safeguards, underscoring apprehensions worldwide.
Argentine President Javier Milei—no friend of multilateral institutions—has publicly questioned WHO policies, though Buenos Aires has yet to announce any formal departure.
Defenders at Bay
Even supporters of the WHO concede that deep reform is overdue. Former CDC Director Dr. Tom Frieden acknowledged bureaucratic failings but cautioned that “abandoning a common framework in the face of emerging threats would be reckless.”
Frieden lauded the WHO’s coordination during recent Ebola flare-ups and its bird-flu early-warning alerts, yet insisted that “efficiency must replace endless process.”
As Washington presses ahead with its exit, Secretary Kennedy’s scathing critique lays bare the chasm between U.S. policymakers and an organization striving to galvanize global cooperation.
With the treaty now in force, the WHO must either shed its cumbersome bureaucracy or risk alienating its most critical supporters at the very moment it needs them most.
This article was drafted with automated assistance and reviewed before publication. How we use AI · Report an error · Editorial responsibility: Matthias Camenzind, Editor-in-Chief