The Trump administration has formally declared its opposition to a set of revisions made to the World Health Organization’s (WHO) International Health Regulations (IHR), asserting that the new terms encroach upon the sovereignty of the United States and interfere with the nation’s right to determine its own health policies.
Upon reassuming office on January 20, President Donald Trump swiftly initiated steps to remove the U.S. from the WHO. However, the State Department clarified that despite the country’s withdrawal, the modifications approved by the WHO in 2023 would have continued to apply to the U.S. unless explicitly rejected.
In a joint statement issued on Friday, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr.—who has long questioned the safety and necessity of vaccines—argued that the adopted amendments “risk unwarranted interference with our national sovereign right to make health policy.”
They further emphasized, “We will put Americans first in all our actions and we will not tolerate international policies that infringe on Americans’ speech, privacy, or personal liberties.”
Rubio and Kennedy officially withdrew U.S. support for the amended International Health Regulations, which serve as a global legal foundation for managing public health emergencies and cross-border disease outbreaks. These changes were negotiated and approved during the 2023 World Health Assembly held in Geneva, Switzerland.
In response to the U.S. decision, WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus released a statement via the social media platform X, expressing disappointment. “We regret the US decision to reject the amendments,” he wrote. Tedros reaffirmed that the updated regulations uphold the principle of state sovereignty and made it clear that the WHO does not possess the authority to impose lockdowns or similar emergency measures on any country.
Among the revisions was a formal pledge to “solidarity and equity,” which included the establishment of a new advisory group responsible for evaluating the unique needs of developing nations during health crises. Countries were given until Saturday to submit any objections or reservations regarding the new rules.
In recent months, conservative commentators and vaccine-critical activists in countries like the United Kingdom and Australia—both currently governed by progressive parties—have launched public campaigns challenging the legitimacy and scope of the IHR amendments.
The amendments were introduced as a fallback after a broader effort to negotiate a comprehensive new global pandemic accord fell through at the Assembly. While the majority of member states succeeded in finalizing a treaty in May 2025, the United States opted out of the agreement, continuing its withdrawal process from the WHO under the Trump administration.
Even prior to the formal withdrawal, during the May–June 2024 negotiation period, the Biden administration had refrained from endorsing the global consensus, citing the need to protect U.S. intellectual property rights linked to vaccine development and medical innovations.
Rubio and Kennedy, in their joint statement rejecting the amendments, further argued that the revisions “fail to adequately address the WHO’s susceptibility to the political influence and censorship—most notably from China—during outbreaks.”
In his response, Tedros stood by the impartial nature of the WHO, stating that the organization “works with all countries to improve people’s health,” and does so without yielding to political interference.
What you should know
Secretary of State Marco Rubio and HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced the United States’ rejection of WHO’s pandemic rule amendments, citing national sovereignty and individual freedoms.
WHO’s Director-General insists the organization respects the independence of member states and cannot impose health mandates. The rejection follows Trump’s renewed exit from the WHO and marks a stark shift in U.S. engagement with global health governance.
