BREAKING — WHO Pandemic Agreement Approved by Member States, Ushering in a Dangerous New World Health Order

U.S. escapes WHO treaty enabling fast-tracked experimental vaccines, censorship of dissent, and global surveillance systems.

NICOLAS HULSCHER, MPH

by Nicolas Hulscher, MPH

On May 19, 2025, the World Health Organization (WHO) took a historic but deeply concerning step: Member States, through Committee A of the World Health Assembly, officially approved the WHO Pandemic Agreement—a sweeping global treaty that is now expected to be formally adopted in plenary session on Tuesday, May 20.

This agreement, hailed by WHO leadership as a landmark tool for “equity,” “solidarity,” and “science-based” pandemic responses, contains alarming provisions that threaten national sovereignty, institutionalize emergency countermeasures, and entrench WHO as the central coordinating authority in future health crises.

Why It Matters That the United States Is Withdrawing from the WHO

On January 20, 2025, President Donald Trump signed an executive order initiating the U.S. withdrawal from the WHO, citing its COVID-19 failures, lack of reforms, and disproportionate U.S. funding. The move paused all future U.S. funding, ended negotiations on the Pandemic Agreement, and recalled U.S. personnel. The withdrawal takes full effect on January 22, 2026.

This exit protects the U.S. from being legally bound by this treaty’s sweeping obligations:

Key Concerns Hidden in the WHO Pandemic Agreement

▶ Coordinated WHO Governance That Pressures National Policies

While Article 3 affirms national sovereignty, the agreement—adopted under Article 19 of the WHO Constitution—creates binding international obligations for Parties once ratified (Articles 31–33). It empowers WHO to coordinate pandemic responses through:

• A global Pathogen Access and Benefit-Sharing System (Article 12)
• A Global Supply Chain and Logistics Network (GSCL) (Article 13)
• A Coordinating Financial Mechanism for pandemic response (Article 18)
• National pandemic planning, surveillance, and communications strategies (Articles 4, 6, 16)

Once ratified, countries are expected to align domestic policies with WHO-led systems, subjecting national decision-making to international influence.

▶ Emergency-Use Vaccines with Fast-Track Approvals

The agreement promotes expedited regulatory authorizations and WHO’s Emergency Use Listing during pandemics (Article 8.2). It encourages regulatory alignment and urges manufacturers to allocate 20% of their real-time production of vaccines and therapeutics to WHO, including 10% as a donation (Article 12.6). This means global deployment of more experimental injections.

▶ No Built-In Liability or Compensation for Injuries

Although mass distribution of pandemic countermeasures is promoted, the agreement includes no binding provisions for compensation. Resolution OP15.10 from the Assembly merely requests WHO to develop “non-binding advice” on managing legal risks related to novel pandemic vaccines, leaving responsibility to individual nations.

▶ Lays Groundwork for Vaccine Passports and Digital Surveillance

Article 6.3 mandates development of interoperable national health information systems. Article 8.4 encourages regulatory reliance, and Article 16 promotes population-level risk communication and “pandemic literacy.” While vaccine passports are not explicitly named, the structure supports global digital compliance mechanisms linked to immunization and surveillance.

▶ Becomes Binding on Ratifying Countries

The agreement was adopted under Article 19 of the WHO Constitution (Resolution OP1) and becomes legally binding after 60 countries ratify it (Articles 31–33). Once in force, it obligates Parties to participate in WHO-led coordination and response frameworks during declared pandemic emergencies, even if domestic law would otherwise differ.

Why This Is Bad

• National governments will be pressured to align their laws with global dictates
• Experimental products would be rapidly deployed without sufficient safety data
• Legitimate scientific dissent could be labeled as misinformation
• Entire populations could be coerced into compliance with no guaranteed recourse for harm

The U.S. withdrawal from the WHO was a vital and strategic move—protecting national sovereignty and medical freedom. Other countries would be wise to follow suit before being bound by the WHO’s sweeping global mandates.

Nicolas Hulscher, MPH

Epidemiologist and Foundation Administrator, McCullough Foundation

www.mcculloughfnd.org

Please consider following both the McCullough Foundation and my personal account on X (formerly Twitter) for further content.

---

This article (BREAKING — WHO Pandemic Agreement Approved by Member States, Ushering in a Dangerous New World Health Order) was created and published by Nicolas Hulscher, MPH and is republished here under “Fair Use”

“Committee A” Has Voted to Adopt the Pandemic Agreement

The Pandemic Agreement was adopted by “Committee A” by a vote of 124-yes, 0-no, with 11 abstentions, 46 not present and 13 unqualified to vote or not attending. The United States did not participate.

••••

The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)

••••

Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.

••••

Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.

••••

Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of The Liberty Beacon Project.