US and three other countries reject WHO’s IHR amendments:

US and three other countries reject WHO’s IHR amendments; the UK, the global censorship hub, is not one of them

Rhoda Wilson

On 18 July, the US officially rejected the World Health Organisation’s (“WHO”) 2024 amendments to the International Health Regulations (“IHR”), citing threats to national sovereignty, free speech and constitutional protections.

If not rejected, the amendments would have allowed the WHO to influence lockdowns, vaccine documentation and pandemic declarations without approval from elected officials or public input.

Austria, Italy and Israel also blocked the amendments before the 19 July 2025 deadline, each emphasising the need for local control over health policy and rejecting unelected global oversight.

Countries that did not formally reject the amendments by the deadline will be bound by them starting 19 September 2025, while four nations have until the 19th September 2026 to opt out.

People can still take action by checking their country’s position, pressuring local representatives, informing others and organising efforts to defend national health autonomy.

As always, we should recall that there are two WHO instruments: the IHR amendments, which is the subject of this article, and the Pandemic Treaty, which has also been referred to as the Pandemic Agreement, Pandemic Accord and WHO Convention Agreement + (“WHO CA+”). 

On 18 July 2025, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Marco Rubio delivered a formal rejection of the World Health Organisation’s (“WHO”) 2024 amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR).1

The reason? The changes would give an unelected international body the power to shape national public health decisions – including pandemic declarations, digital health documentation, and so-called “equitable access” to medical products – without democratic oversight or public debate.

This isn’t just about bureaucratic language. These amendments directly impact your right to privacy, freedom of movement and control over your personal health decisions. The updated rules include vague but far-reaching terms that would allow the WHO to interfere with national emergency response measures, compel governments to implement digital health surveillance tools and facilitate narrative control under the guise of risk communication.

The language is intentionally broad – enough to authorise sweeping actions while avoiding accountability. And unlike WHO membership, these amendments would have been binding even if a nation had exited the organisation altogether. Italy, Israel and Austria have also rejected or objected to the amendments. Their actions mirror the US stance: health decisions need to remain within national borders and be governed by constitutional protections, not dictated by global bureaucrats.

In each case, officials warned of dangerous overreach, unchecked censorship and the erosion of civil liberties under the pretence of public health. Understanding how these amendments were crafted, what they attempt to enforce and why countries are pushing back is key. The next section breaks down what the US rejection means in practical terms – and what it signals for your future autonomy in the face of global health mandates.

More...