". . . and having done all . . . stand firm." Eph. 6:13


Opposition to WHO Pandemic Treaty Swells as World Health Assembly Approaches

May 15, 2024

With the World Health Organization’s (WHO) annual World Health Assembly less than two weeks away, a burgeoning array of lawmakers, state attorneys general, and international leaders are voicing forceful opposition to a WHO-proposed “pandemic agreement” over concerns that it infringes on national sovereignty, violates the Constitution, promotes abortion, and will likely lead to increased censorship of public health debates, among other issues.

Last week, the WHO announced in a press release that it was making “steady progress” on the proposed pandemic agreement as member states continue “intensive negotiations” ahead of the 77th World Health Assembly in Geneva, Switzerland, which is scheduled to last from May 27 to June 1.

But observers are noting that the process of drafting the agreement, which analysts have emphasized is actually a binding treaty, has been entangled in controversy and ambiguity from the beginning. “[T]hose drafting this agreement, they missed their deadline,” Family Research Council President Tony Perkins pointed out during Tuesday’s edition of “Washington Watch with Tony Perkins.” “… [T]hey’re working now to cobble something together in the 11th hour. This really kind of marks this whole process. It’s been going on for almost two years, a lot of it behind closed doors, a lot of it just constantly changing. It’s hard to get a grasp on exactly what they’re going to propose.”

Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey (R) concurred. “[T]here are some other member nations [that have] express[ed] their explicit reservations prior to what we’ve seen the White House do most recently.” He went on to highlight a letter sent to President Biden last week signed by himself and 21 other state attorneys general opposing the White House’s plan to sign the treaty. “[It puts] the WHO and President Biden on notice that there are significant legal flaws here, aside from the fact that it’s a terrible policy position [and is a] slouch towards a one world government.”

Lawmakers on Capitol Hill are also in staunch opposition to the U.S. entering into the treaty. Earlier this month, the entire Senate Republican Conference demanded that the Biden administration withdraw from the treaty, citing a “[substantial] increase [in] the WHO’s health emergency powers” and “intolerable infringements upon U.S. sovereignty.” House Republicans such as Brad Wenstrup (R-Ohio) and Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.) have also expressed their opposition to the treaty citing the WHO’s failures during the COVID pandemic, with Biggs introducing legislation co-sponsored by 17 congressmen to withdraw from the agreement.

In addition, international leaders in the U.K. declared their intention to reform the WHO in the wake of the controversial treaty. On Monday, former Brexit leader Nigel Farage announced the launch of the international organization Action on World Health with the goal of changing the WHO “to respect national sovereignty, stop interfering in people’s lives, and abandon the frankly terrifying pandemic treaty.”

Attorney General Bailey expanded on the repercussions of the treaty during Tuesday’s “Washington Watch.”

“The World Health Organization, which has traditionally been an advisory body, is attempting an unprecedented power grab that would actually create the authority within the WHO to enforce pandemic regulations,” he explained. “And what our experience in COVID-19 taught us is that the worst of the worst of tyrannical tendencies of the progressive Left come out when there’s a perceived or actual emergency, like a pandemic. And so movement towards a one world government [like] WHO’s response to COVID … was abominable at best. These kinds of unilateral tendencies to consolidate power in an international organization is not only unconstitutional and illegal, but is immoral as well.”

Bailey further detailed the legal problems presented by the treaty.

“[T]he United States Constitution does not give any authority to the federal government to delegate its responsibility for public health policy with either the World Health Organization or to take that authority away from the states,” he observed. “[T]he structure of our government matters under our constitutional democratic republic, and the 10th Amendment clearly states that any authority not given to the federal government or denied to the states is enjoyed by the states and the people of the states. And so neither Joe Biden nor even the Congress could delegate this authority to an international body that would seek to enjoy any authority over the people of the United States of America.”

“We will continue to fight back and ensure that our constitutional rights here in America and in the state of Missouri are scrupulously protected,” the Missouri attorney general concluded. “It’s in times of perceived emergency that we must be most vigilant in our protection of our constitutional liberties.”

Dan Hart is senior editor at The Washington Stand.