US and three other countries reject WHO’s IHR amendments; the UK, the global censorship hub, is not one of them – The Expose
US and three other countries reject WHO’s IHR amendments; the UK, the global censorship hub, is not one of them
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.
Let’s not lose touch…Your Government and Big Tech are actively trying to censor the information reported by The Exposé to serve their own needs. Subscribe now to make sure you receive the latest uncensored news in your inbox…
Please note, for much of the following article, Dr. Joseph Mercola takes the viewpoint of US citizens; what the US population has avoided by the US government rejecting WHO’s IHR amendments. For countries that have not rejected them, it is the opposite. It is what governments have agreed populations within their countries should be subjected to.
As Dr. Mercola highlights the denial of free speech aspects of WHO’s power grab, we should also consider the global impact on free speech that the UK’s Online Safety Act has ushered in, which is affecting Americans as well. Coupled with the UK government accepting WHO’s sweeping control through the IHR amendments, we cannot rule out that this could mean information will be controlled globally by WHO through the UK government.
Related: UK’s Online Safety Act has kick-started a global frenzy of online censorship and surveillance
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+”).
US Has Rejected the Amendments to the International Health Regulations
When a joint statement comes from both the US Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Secretary of State, it’s worth paying attention. 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.
Bureaucrats Abroad Tried to Rewrite American Health Policy – but Failed
US leaders have formally rejected WHO’s expanded authority via the 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 centralise 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 US response emphasised 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 people’s medical records and health status, linking access to travel, work or services to WHO-defined compliance standards.
The US government made clear it “will not tolerate international policies that infringe on Americans’ speech, privacy, or personal liberties.”
• The US criticised 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 US 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, US 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 jeopardising 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 organisation “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 that 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 has already witnessed what happens when centralised 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 19 July 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 17 July 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 19 July.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 defence, 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 centralise 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 19 July 2025 to opt out. If no action was taken by that date, the amendments will become binding on 19 September 2025.
However, if you’re in Iran, the Netherlands, New Zealand or Slovakia, your government has until 19 September 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, neighbours 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 US, 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 the rule of law. Referencing these nations makes it clear that this isn’t fringe or extreme – it’s responsible governance.
5. Organise 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, and digital health surveillance – without consent from local populations or legislative oversight.
Q: Has the US accepted or rejected the IHR amendments?
A: The US formally rejected the 2024 IHR amendments on 18 July 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 19 July 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 19 July 2025, the amendments are scheduled to become binding on 19 September 2025. However, four countries – Iran, the Netherlands, New Zealand and Slovakia – have until 19 September 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 organising locally. These steps help ensure that public health policy remains under democratic control, not dictated by international agencies.
Sources and References
- 1, 2 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services July 18, 2025
- 3, 4 The Hill July 18, 2025
- 5 Substack, James Roguski July 22, 2025
- 6 Substack, James Roguski July 18, 2025
- 7 Substack, James Roguski July 19, 2025
- 8 Substack, James Roguski July 12, 2025
About the Author
Dr. Joseph Mercola is the founder and owner of Mercola.com, a Board-Certified Family Medicine Osteopathic Physician, a Fellow of the American College of Nutrition and a New York Times bestselling author. He publishes multiple articles a day covering a wide range of topics on his website, Mercola.com.
#image_title
” data-image-caption=”
#image_title
” data-medium-file=”https://i0.wp.com/expose-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/AugFeat15a.png?fit=300%2C169&ssl=1″ data-large-file=”https://i0.wp.com/expose-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/AugFeat15a.png?fit=639%2C359&ssl=1″>
The Expose Urgently Needs Your Help…
Can you please help to keep the lights on with The Expose’s honest, reliable, powerful and truthful journalism?
Your Government & Big Tech organisations
try to silence & shut down The Expose.
So we need your help to ensure
we can continue to bring you the
facts the mainstream refuses to.
The government does not fund us
to publish lies and propaganda on their
behalf like the Mainstream Media.
Instead, we rely solely on your support. So
please support us in our efforts to bring
you honest, reliable, investigative journalism
today. It’s secure, quick and easy.
Please choose your preferred method below to show your support.
While previously it was a hobby culminating in writing articles for Wikipedia (until things made a drastic and undeniable turn in 2020) and a few books for private consumption, since March 2020 I have become a full-time researcher and writer in reaction to the global takeover that came into full view with the introduction of covid-19. For most of my life, I have tried to raise awareness that a small group of people planned to take over the world for their own benefit. There was no way I was going to sit back quietly and simply let them do it once they made their final move.
