Representative Andy Biggs is taking a firm stance against global institutions, specifically targeting the World Health Organization (WHO). His newly introduced WHO Withdrawal Act is designed to achieve a complete withdrawal from the organization and lay down a legal barrier against any future re-engagement. This initiative reflects broader concerns among lawmakers who believe American sovereignty is at risk from unaccountable international entities.
Biggs has made his position clear, stating, “The United States must never again surrender our sovereignty to a corrupt, unaccountable international organization.” His plan emphasizes the urgency for Congress to act swiftly to codify these objectives into law. The proposed legislation seeks not only to withdraw but also to repeal the Act that officially authorized U.S. membership in the WHO, which dates back to 1948.
The backdrop to this push stems from criticisms of the WHO’s performance during the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly regarding its relationship with authoritarian regimes such as China. Lawmakers are troubled by what they perceive as the organization’s failure to provide timely and accurate information at a critical moment. As Biggs articulated, “For years, the WHO has undermined American interests…compromised by China and has sabotaged many public health investigations.” This sentiment echoes the discontent of many Republicans, who view ongoing engagement with the WHO under the current Biden administration as a potential surrender of U.S. policy to foreign bureaucrats.
The urgency of Biggs’s call to action gained further traction when the Biden administration contemplated endorsing amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR), which would have granted the WHO enhanced powers over national health policies. Fortunately for Biggs and his supporters, key figures in the administration, including Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., stepped in to reject these amendments. Kennedy warned that such changes could lead to censorship and a disregard for civil liberties. His stance aligns with Biggs’s aim to prioritize American autonomy over international control.
The implications of the WHO Withdrawal Act extend beyond merely severing ties. If passed, it would halt hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. contributions to the WHO, a substantial funding stream that critics argue has remained largely unaccounted for. In the fiscal year 2020, the U.S. contributed nearly $893 million to the WHO—making it the largest contributor among member nations. Proponents argue that this financial support has not led to tangible benefits for U.S. interests.
Opponents of the bill express concern about the potential fallout from withdrawing from an organization that plays a significant role in global health monitoring and disease response. Critics argue that distancing the U.S. from the WHO could hamper coordinated efforts to address health threats. However, supporters assert that America can maintain its medical and scientific capabilities independently through bilateral agreements and domestic systems, negating the need for involvement with a central authority.
“We are not turning our backs on public health,” Rep. Chip Roy firmly stated. Instead, he claims, “We are turning our backs on unelected, unaccountable foreign bureaucrats.” This speaks to a broader sentiment among advocates for the withdrawal—a belief that effective health policy should remain firmly under the control of the American people, not dictated by international bodies.
This movement echoes past frustrations, recalling former President Trump’s attempts to exit the WHO in 2020. His administration’s efforts faced significant procedural obstacles and were ultimately reversed by the incoming Biden team. Trump’s rationale centered on the belief that the WHO’s slow response to China’s actions at the start of the pandemic underlined the organization’s inadequacies.
The legislative activity surrounding the WHO Withdrawal Act indicates that the issue is not just a matter of policy but one that deeply resonates with voters who are wary of global entanglements. Biggs’s recent social media call to pass the legislation highlights the urgency many feel about safeguarding U.S. decision-making from external influences. “The goal here is simple,” Biggs stated. “Never again should an American president or administration have the unilateral power to entangle us in corrupt global institutions that do not serve the American people.”
As the WHO Withdrawal Act navigates its way through Congress, it is poised to become a focal point in future discussions on national security and international health policy, especially in the lead-up to the 2026 election cycle. The ramifications of this legislative effort have the potential to reshape America’s role in global health governance and realign its approach to future health crises.
"*" indicates required fields
