by Dr. Joseph Mercola
August 13, 2025
from Mercola Website
PDF version






 

When a joint statement comes from both the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Secretary of State, it's worth paying attention.

On July 18, 2025, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Marco Rubio delivered a formal rejection of the World Health Organization'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 authorize sweeping actions while avoiding accountability...

 

And unlike WHO membership, these amendments would have been binding even if a nation had exited the organization altogether.

Italy, Israel, and Austria have also rejected or objected to the amendments.

Their actions mirror the U.S. 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 pretense 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 U.S. rejection means in practical terms - and what it signals for your future autonomy in the face of global health mandates.

Bureaucrats Abroad Tried to Rewrite American Health Policy - but Failed

U.S. leaders have formally rejected WHO's expanded authority via 2024 amendments to the IHR.

These changes, according to the joint statement from Kennedy Jr. and Rubio, would have allowed the WHO to bypass American law and impose health directives, including lockdowns and vaccine documentation, without approval from Congress or the American people. ²

• 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 Slams WHO's Censorship Agenda and Digital Surveillance Push

As reported by The Hill, Kennedy Jr. warned that the newly proposed amendments to the IHR,

"open the door to the kind of narrative management, propaganda, and censorship that we saw during the COVID-19 'pandemic'." ³

That kind of control doesn't just affect officials - it reaches into your life, dictating what information you hear, what platforms allow, and how you're allowed to speak about health.

• 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.

Other Nations Joined the US in Refusing IHR Amendments

Austria, Italy, and Israel all took formal action to block WHO's power grab.

Their moves weren't symbolic.

 

Each took legal or parliamentary action to halt the WHO's expanded emergency powers before the July 19, 2025 deadline.

Across all three nations, a common theme emerged: health policy needs to be made by local officials who are accountable to their people, not by distant bureaucrats.

For citizens of those countries, that means their governments preserved the ability to make local health decisions without international interference. ⁵

• 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."

How You Can Push Back and Protect Your Rights

If you're worried about losing your say in personal health decisions to international agencies, you're not overreacting - you're responding to a real shift in power.

The 2024 IHR amendments weren't just technical updates. They were written to centralize control, diminish national sovereignty, and give unelected global actors the ability to shape your country's 'pandemic' response without your input.

That's not a distant threat. It's already on track to become binding policy in most of the world.

But this isn't just about politics - it's about protecting your ability to make informed, voluntary health decisions for yourself and your family.

Whether you're a parent, a business owner, or someone who values constitutional protections, you have tools right now to make a difference.

Here are five steps I recommend to take action:
 

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

• 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.

You're not powerless:

The laws that govern your health should come from those you elect, not those you've never heard of.

 

This is your chance to defend that principle.

 

Take the first step, and help others do the same.

FAQs About the 2024 IHR Amendments
 

Q: What are the 2024 IHR amendments, and why are they controversial?

A: The 2024 IHR amendments were adopted by the WHO to expand its authority over global health emergencies.

 

These changes give unelected international officials power to,

• influence national decisions on lockdowns

• vaccine mandates

• digital health surveillance,

...without consent from local populations or legislative oversight.
 

Q: Has the U.S. accepted or rejected the IHR amendments?

A: The U.S. formally rejected the 2024 IHR amendments on July 18, 2025, in a joint statement by Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

 

Their decision was based on protecting U.S. constitutional rights, medical autonomy, and freedom from international mandates.
 

Q: Which other countries have rejected or objected to the amendments?

A: Italy, Austria, and Israel also took action to block the amendments before the July 19, 2025, deadline.

 

Italy issued a full rejection, Austria filed a legal objection to prevent enforcement without parliamentary approval, and Israel withdrew from adoption entirely following internal government review.
 

Q: Are the amendments binding for countries that didn't formally reject them?

A: Yes.

 

For countries that did not submit a formal rejection or reservation by July 19, 2025, the amendments are scheduled to become binding on September 19, 2025.

 

However, four countries - Iran, the Netherlands, New Zealand, and Slovakia - have until September 19, 2026, to opt out due to their prior rejection of the 2022 IHR amendments.
 

Q: What can I do if I disagree with the WHO's growing authority over health decisions?

A: Take action by learning your country's official position, contacting lawmakers, educating your community, sharing examples from countries that rejected the amendments, and organizing locally.

 

These steps help ensure that public health policy remains under democratic control, not dictated by international agencies.

Sources and References