The COVID-19 pandemic exposed deep vulnerabilities in the world’s preparedness and ability to respond collectively to global health crises. In its aftermath, international efforts—led by the World Health Organization (WHO)—have sought to reform global pandemic response mechanisms through amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR) and the creation of a new pandemic treaty. These reforms aim to strengthen surveillance, ensure equitable access to vaccines and therapeutics, and improve early warning and response systems. However, in July 2025, the United States announced its decision to withdraw from these WHO-led reform efforts. This move has profound implications—not only for global health governance but also for the United States’ own security and moral leadership.

I. Background to the Reforms
The WHO’s proposed reforms include amendments to the IHR (2005), a legally binding instrument that governs how countries prepare for and respond to cross-border health threats. The reforms were intended to address the shortcomings exposed during COVID-19: slow reporting of outbreaks, lack of international coordination, unequal access to vaccines, and insufficient funding for low-income countries. A parallel process was the negotiation of a new international treaty on pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response—designed to establish more coherent global rules, obligations, and benefits-sharing mechanisms.

While over 120 countries supported these initiatives, the U.S. government, led by a conservative administration skeptical of international institutions, rejected both the IHR amendments and the draft treaty. Citing concerns about sovereignty, the U.S. administration claimed that the reforms could give the WHO undue power to dictate domestic health policies or infringe on national decision-making.

II. Undermining Global Health Security
The most immediate impact of the U.S. withdrawal is the weakening of global health coordination. As the world’s largest economy and historically the largest funder of the WHO, the U.S. plays a central role in shaping and sustaining global health architecture. Its absence from the reform process sends a signal of disengagement at a time when global cooperation is more necessary than ever.
Without U.S. participation, global early warning systems may be compromised. For instance, the WHO’s Global Outbreak Alert and Response Network (GOARN) and its pandemic intelligence hubs rely heavily on data-sharing and technical support from U.S. agencies like the CDC and NIH. A reduced American footprint in these networks could delay the detection of emerging diseases and hinder rapid international responses.

Furthermore, the refusal to commit to benefit-sharing mechanisms—such as equitable distribution of vaccines and treatments—risks repeating the inequities of COVID-19, where wealthier nations hoarded medical supplies while poorer countries waited months or years for access. The global community’s effort to ensure fairer outcomes in future pandemics is thus significantly hampered by the U.S. decision to opt out.

III. Diminishing U.S. Influence and Moral Authority
Beyond weakening global health efforts, the withdrawal undermines the United States’ diplomatic influence and soft power. The U.S. has long positioned itself as a leader in global health—through initiatives like PEPFAR (for HIV/AIDS), funding for GAVI and the Global Fund, and leadership in vaccine research and distribution. By refusing to participate in reforms designed to make the world safer, the U.S. risks ceding moral authority to other powers, particularly the European Union and China, which have embraced the treaty’s principles.
This retreat from multilateralism also erodes trust among allies. At a time when transnational threats—whether pandemics, climate change, or cyberattacks—require coordinated global responses, unilateral disengagement signals unreliability and inward focus. It contradicts past U.S. commitments to global cooperation and weakens the very institutions that Americans helped build after World War II.

IV. Sovereignty Concerns vs. Global Solidarity
One of the key arguments made by U.S. lawmakers opposing the WHO reforms is the perceived threat to national sovereignty. Critics argue that vague language in the treaty and the IHR amendments could allow the WHO to override national policies or mandate lockdowns. However, legal experts and WHO representatives have consistently emphasized that the reforms explicitly preserve national sovereignty and that no external body would have the authority to enforce domestic measures.

This tension—between sovereignty and solidarity—is at the heart of the debate. While it is legitimate for countries to safeguard their autonomy, pandemics do not respect borders. In the absence of collective rules and commitments, the default is chaos: uncoordinated border closures, hoarding of supplies, misinformation, and public distrust. The challenge lies in designing a framework that respects national prerogatives while enabling effective international cooperation. By walking away from the negotiating table, the U.S. has foregone the opportunity to shape such a framework.

V. Humanitarian and Scientific Setbacks
The decision to disengage from WHO reforms also risks undermining broader public health and scientific cooperation. Many of the world’s most pressing health challenges—malaria, tuberculosis, polio eradication, and immunization campaigns—are coordinated through WHO platforms, often with substantial U.S. support. A shift away from multilateralism could lead to duplication, fragmentation, and inefficiencies in delivering aid and interventions to vulnerable populations.

Moreover, collaborative research efforts in vaccine development, clinical trials, and genomic surveillance rely on robust global partnerships. With the U.S. outside the formal treaty framework, its researchers may face reduced access to data, samples, and joint funding initiatives—particularly those managed under the proposed Pathogen Access and Benefit-Sharing system. This may slow the pace of innovation and reduce preparedness for the next pandemic.

VI. Broader Strategic Risks
Finally, the U.S. withdrawal has implications beyond health. It reflects a broader pattern of retreat from international institutions—similar to past exits from the Paris Climate Agreement and the UN Human Rights Council under previous administrations. Such moves embolden authoritarian regimes, erode global norms, and create space for other countries to set the rules of international engagement.

At a time when global trust in institutions is fragile and disinformation is rampant, the U.S. should be reinforcing, not undermining, collective governance structures. The COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated that no nation can go it alone in the face of systemic threats. Walking away from WHO reforms may offer short-term political satisfaction to some, but it exposes Americans and the world to greater long-term vulnerability.

Conclusion
The U.S. withdrawal from WHO pandemic response reforms is a significant blow to global health governance. It weakens collective preparedness, undermines trust in multilateral institutions, and risks repeating the mistakes of the past. While concerns about sovereignty and accountability are valid, they should be addressed through constructive engagement, not abandonment. A truly resilient and equitable pandemic response requires all nations—especially those with the capacity and leadership of the United States—to come to the table. Turning away now is not only a missed opportunity, but a dangerous gamble with the world’s health and security.