The United States formally rejected revisions to international health rules set by the World Health Organization, citing concerns over national autonomy, free speech, and abortion policy conflicts.

According to WorldNetDaily, the Trump administration’s July 18 decision to reject the WHO’s 2024 amendments to the International Health Regulations was announced ahead of a legal deadline, shielding U.S. pro-life laws and civil liberties from potential global mandates.

The amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR), coordinated by WHO member countries, were finalized in June 2024 following lessons drawn from the COVID-19 pandemic. The IHR, first adopted in 1969 and expanded in 2005, serves as a framework for global responses to emerging health threats. During the 2024 revision process, the United States remained a WHO member and was therefore formally bound by deadlines regarding the adoption or rejection of the new terms.

On July 18, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. jointly announced that the United States would not participate in the updated IHR. The decision was made public in a shared statement and through commentary each posted separately on the platform X. A detailed video posted by Kennedy offered further insight into the administration’s rationale for the rejection.

The Trump administration argued that the expanded IHR impinges on American sovereignty by potentially allowing the WHO to enact emergency measures, even without a clear or immediate crisis. One of the administration’s primary concerns was the inclusion of provisions that could authorize new global health systems, such as medical identification and vaccine tracking, and the creation of a centralized patient database. These measures were characterized by Kennedy as enabling global medical surveillance.

Concerns Over Abortion Language in WHO Policy

In addition to sovereignty issues, the administration criticized the broad language of the amendments, particularly their reference to “routine and essential health care services.” According to the WHO, such language encompasses abortion, which the organization defines as critical to gender equality and human rights. Critics warn that this could open the door to international encroachment on U.S. pro-life laws through broad health mandates.

Organizations such as the Center for Family and Human Rights (C-Fam) expressed anxiety that abstract terms like “equity” within the amendments offer too much room for interpretation by international agencies and Western donors. C-Fam argues the vagueness could allow promotion of ideological agendas, including expanded abortion access and gender ideology. The same critique was echoed by the joint statement from the State Department and the HHS, which noted that the terminology risks encouraging international actions based more on politics than timely, data-based public health efforts.

Another point of contention relates to updated risk communication provisions. These clauses would allow the WHO to coordinate public messaging across countries, which the U.S. administration argues could lead to global censorship and the suppression of varied viewpoints. Kennedy stated that similar practices during the COVID-19 pandemic often came at the expense of open public discourse.

Timing of Withdrawal and Past WHO Actions

Although the United States withdrew from WHO membership in January 2025, it was still obligated to formally decline the IHR amendments by July 19, 2025, to avoid them automatically taking effect. The amendments were only one part of WHO's recent reforms, which also included the Pandemic Agreement adopted in May 2025. Because the U.S. was no longer a WHO member at that time, it did not participate in the adoption of the Pandemic Agreement.

Provisions tied to abortion access played a key role in objections raised by U.S. leaders. According to critics, the WHO has repeatedly called for the expansion of abortion globally, including support for do-it-yourself telehealth services, the elimination of conscience protections for health care providers, and the scrapping of abortion restrictions such as waiting periods and parental consent. These factors convinced federal officials that the amendments could challenge both state-level and federal pro-life statutes.

Secretary Kennedy underscored the broader civil liberty risks, warning that nations agreeing to the revised IHR surrender key public health decisions to an unelected global body. He suggested this could authorize widespread closures or travel curbs without the presence of a verifiable emergency, raising alarms about repeat scenarios experienced during the pandemic.

Path Remains Open for Future Reentry

While the Trump administration’s decision was final for now, future leaders may choose to reverse the decision. Under a process called “accession,” the United States could ratify the IHR amendments at a later date despite having initially rejected them. Similarly, under Article 32 of the WHO’s Pandemic Agreement, a future White House could seek membership in that separate treaty as well.

Pro-life advocacy groups described the administration’s stance as a significant milestone that protects state-level abortion restrictions from potential international conflicts. However, they acknowledged that the protections are only as lasting as the current administration’s policy direction. Possible reversals by future leadership remain a concern for these organizations.

The mix of reactions underscores the continuing debate in the U.S. over how much influence international bodies should have over national policy in areas involving health care, personal freedoms, and moral questions. The WHO revisions were designed to facilitate faster, unified responses to pandemics, but they have ignited intense scrutiny over what such coordination might entail for sovereign nations.

U.S. Maintains Control Over Health Decisions

This latest rejection reflects the Trump administration’s ongoing intent to ensure domestic control over health emergency responses and related policy areas. Though the WHO’s goals aim at global collaboration during health crises, U.S. officials argue that such unity should not come at the cost of autonomy, privacy, or ethical diversity across nations.

For now, the United States remains out of both the International Health Regulations as revised and the newer Pandemic Agreement. Whether those changes in the long term will likely depend on the outcome of future elections and the posture of those elected toward international partnerships on public health.