US Has Rejected the Amendments to the International Health Regulations

• The amendments aimed to centralize emergency decisions under WHO control — The rejected amendments gave the WHO power to define and respond to what it calls a “Public Health Emergency of International Concern.”

The updated language would have allowed the WHO to intervene in a country’s domestic affairs based on subjective interpretations of global solidarity or health equity. This would’ve included the ability to influence pandemic declarations and responses in ways that directly override national public health agencies and local policies.

• Officials warned that vague terms open the door to censorship — According to the joint statement, the terminology in the amendments was broad and undefined — phrases like “equitable access” and “risk communication” were left open to interpretation. In practice, this means global officials could have justified censorship or surveillance under the excuse of controlling misinformation or ensuring compliance with “equity” goals.

The U.S. response emphasized that this kind of ambiguity undermines scientific debate and allows politically motivated directives to masquerade as public health guidance. By embedding subjective language into binding agreements, international bodies like the WHO create a framework that narrows acceptable discourse and enforces medical compliance with minimal oversight. This is how policy becomes a mechanism for influence, not protection.

• Digital health tracking was a major red flag — The rejected language also encouraged countries to adopt digital health documents, including vaccine passports and health ID systems. These tools would’ve facilitated international tracking of individuals’ medical records and health status, linking access to travel, work, or services to WHO-defined compliance standards.

The U.S. government made clear it “will not tolerate international policies that infringe on Americans’ speech, privacy, or personal liberties.”

• The U.S. criticized the WHO’s poor track record during outbreaks like COVID — The joint statement called out the WHO’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic, citing its susceptibility to “political influence and censorship — most notably from China.”

Officials stressed that entrusting the WHO with more control after this history of failed transparency and accountability would be irresponsible. Rather than improving emergency responses, the amendments risked repeating the same communication breakdowns and information suppression that marred the global COVID response.

• This decision preserves U.S. medical autonomy — According to the statement, “public health policy continues to be dictated by the values and will of the American people, not unelected global actors.”

The rejection ensures that American citizens retain constitutional protections and are not subject to directives issued by an international agency that does not answer to them. By refusing to accept the new language, U.S. health policy remains under the control of state and federal agencies, not bureaucrats in Geneva.

• Kennedy made it clear: the amendments undermine civil liberties — “The United States can cooperate with other nations without jeopardizing our civil liberties, without undermining our Constitution, and without ceding away America’s treasured sovereignty,” Kennedy stated in a video posted to X (formerly Twitter).⁴

This isn’t abstract policy — it’s about whether unelected officials have the authority to restrict your freedom to travel, gather, speak, or make medical decisions during a declared emergency.

• The WHO has no power to mandate, but the amendments would shift that balance — WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus publicly claimed that the organization “has never had the power to mandate lockdowns, travel restrictions, or any other similar measures.” While technically true under current rules, the new language would have pressured governments to comply with WHO-coordinated responses, including mandates and movement restrictions, without democratic consent.

• The amendments could force countries to create risk communication systems — Kennedy also took aim at a regulation that would require member countries to develop “risk communication” systems. While the term sounds neutral, Kennedy explained this language is code for information control: systems that control narratives, limit dissent, and enforce compliance with official positions.

• Kennedy’s rejection ties back to real-world harms seen during COVID — The article drew a direct line between the proposed rules and the suppression of debate seen in the last pandemic. According to Kennedy, the world already witnessed what happens when centralized health narratives dominate media, shut down dissent, and silence clinicians who question official doctrine. Locking that system into international law would repeat and worsen those mistakes.

• Austria lodged a legal objection to buy time and preserve autonomy — Austria’s Permanent Mission to the United Nations in Geneva filed a legal objection to the IHR amendments on July 17, 2025, just two days before the deadline.⁶ This objection ensures the amendments won’t apply in Austria until the national parliament has formally approved them.

In other words, Austrians now have a window to pressure lawmakers and block the changes permanently. The Ministry of Health confirmed that the rejection was filed to uphold the Austrian Constitution — not as a formality, but to maintain sovereignty over national health policy.

• Italy flatly rejected the amendments, bypassing future enforcement — Italy’s Health Minister Orazio Schillaci, with the backing of Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, formally declined the amendments on July 19.⁷ Their refusal wasn’t a conditional objection — it was a full rejection.

According to translated excerpts from the Italian newspaper La Verità, the amendments would have given the WHO authority to issue binding recommendations on quarantines, movement restrictions, and supply chain management without consulting the Italian Parliament. Schillaci called it an unacceptable breach of democracy and promised to shield citizens from top-down directives that undermine constitutional rights.

• Israel’s leadership withdrew after months of internal review — In a bold move, Israeli Health Minister Uriel Bosso announced that Israel would not adopt the new WHO regulations.⁸ The decision came after sustained lobbying from Knesset members, health professionals, and legal experts.

Bosso explained that the treaty would give the WHO excessive influence over Israel’s national decisions, especially in areas like defense, economics, and education. His final statement made the stakes clear: “This is a complex and considered decision that is intended to protect the interests of the State of Israel and expresses our full responsibility for public health.”

1. Find out where your country stands on the 2024 amendments — Start by checking whether your government has submitted a formal rejection or reservation. Most countries had until July 19, 2025 to opt out. If no action was taken by that date, the amendments will become binding on September 19, 2025.

However, if you’re in Iran, the Netherlands, New Zealand, or Slovakia, your government has until September 19, 2026 to make a decision. That means there’s still time to act locally — push your representatives to reject the amendments before that deadline passes.

2. Engage your elected officials directly — Don’t rely on petitions or mass emails. Pick up the phone, write a physical letter, or request a meeting with your local representative. Ask them where they stand on ceding health authority to the WHO. Be clear: you expect your country to retain full control over national health emergencies, including decisions about lockdowns, quarantine, and personal medical freedom. Hold them accountable by documenting their responses and sharing them publicly.

3. Educate others who still don’t know this is happening — Most people have no idea these amendments exist or what they mean. Talk to your friends, family, neighbors, and coworkers. Use clear language — avoid legal or technical jargon. Explain that this isn’t about rejecting health collaboration, but about maintaining constitutional authority and informed consent. Personal conversations are still the most powerful tool for shifting public awareness.

4. Share examples from countries that have already acted — Like the U.S., Italy, Israel, and Austria all formally rejected or legally objected to the 2024 amendments. Their decisions were grounded in protecting civil liberties, national decision-making, and freedom from censorship. Use their language when talking to others — it’s direct, reasonable, and based on rule of law. Referencing these nations makes it clear that this isn’t fringe or extreme — it’s responsible governance.

5. Organize locally — start small, but start now — If you’re part of a church, school board, town hall, or business network, use those platforms to raise awareness and build momentum. You don’t need to host a rally — start with a discussion group, a Q&A night, or a one-page fact sheet you hand out. The goal is to build informed communities who are ready to advocate for policies that reflect their values — not the agendas of unaccountable international agencies.