In a move to safeguard U.S. sovereignty, the House of Representatives passed a bill on Wednesday that ensures any international pandemic treaty, including one proposed by the World Health Organization (W.H.O.), must receive Senate approval before being ratified.

The legislation, introduced by Rep. Tom Tiffany (R-WI), seeks to prevent the Biden administration from entering into international agreements without Congress's consent, Breitbart reported.

The bill, titled “No W.H.O. Pandemic Preparedness Treaty Without Senate Approval Act,” was proposed as a direct response to the W.H.O.’s ongoing efforts to draft a binding international pandemic treaty. The treaty, known as the W.H.O. convention, aims to regulate global responses to health emergencies like COVID-19. As of May 2024, it remains in draft form, with the aim of setting a global framework for addressing future pandemics.

Concerns About U.S. Sovereignty Drive Debate

Supporters of the bill, like Rep. Tiffany, have voiced concerns about the treaty's potential to undermine U.S. sovereignty. The primary fear is that the W.H.O. could have the power to declare public health emergencies within U.S. borders, potentially overriding American governmental control. Critics also worry the treaty could mandate the sharing of medical technology and intellectual property.

“It’s deeply concerning that the Biden-Harris administration would even consider signing the World Health Organization’s pandemic treaty,” Tiffany said. “We cannot stand by as they attempt to surrender control of our public health system to unelected bureaucrats at the W.H.O. and the UN.”

Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ), a strong supporter of the bill, described the treaty as an “absolute power grab” by the W.H.O. He accused the organization of being overly influenced by Chinese leadership, particularly under President Xi Jinping, and warned that the treaty could diminish U.S. control over its health policy.

Bipartisan Support and Opposition

The bill ultimately passed narrowly, with a vote of 219-199, as four Democrats broke ranks to support it. Specifically, Reps. David Scott (D-GA), Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (D-WA), Jared F. Golden (D-ME), and Donald G. Davis (D-NC) sided with Republicans in favor of requiring Senate approval for any international pandemic agreement. However, despite the bipartisan support, the majority of Democrats opposed the bill, citing the need for global cooperation in handling health crises.

Meanwhile, Rep. Smith emphasized the importance of public debate on any pandemic-related treaty. “This important legislation will help ensure that there is extensive and rigorous review by the American people,” he said, “and sufficient public debate by members of the Senate before any agreement can be made by the Biden-Harris Administration.”

Potential Bypassing of Congress Sparks Concern

One of the bill’s key provisions is its requirement for Senate approval of any future international pandemic agreements, whether officially designated as treaties or otherwise. This clause reflects a concern that the Biden administration might try to bypass congressional oversight, as happened with the Paris Climate Agreement and the Iran nuclear deal. In both cases, the executive branch entered into international agreements without the Senate’s consent, a move that has sparked ongoing debate about executive overreach.

The W.H.O.’s draft treaty, also referred to as WHO CA+ (Convention, Agreement, or other international instrument on pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response), is part of broader global efforts to prevent future pandemics. The draft includes controversial provisions requiring wealthier nations to share medical technology with developing countries and offer financial assistance. These provisions have led to disagreements among W.H.O. member states, delaying consensus on the treaty.

W.H.O. and U.S. Representatives Respond

W.H.O. Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus has therefore dismissed concerns about the treaty’s impact on national sovereignty, calling such claims “misinformation.” In fact, he stressed that the treaty is intended to enhance global preparedness for future pandemics by fostering cooperation, rather than to erode the authority of individual nations.

Similarly, Pamela Hamamoto, the U.S. representative to the W.H.O., echoed these sentiments, stating in 2023 that the United States remains committed to the pandemic accord. She described the agreement as a critical component of global health architecture, designed to last for generations.

“Shared commitment, shared aspirations, and shared responsibilities will vastly improve our system for preventing, preparing for, and responding to future pandemic emergencies,” Hamamoto said at the time.

Uncertainty Surrounds the Treaty’s Future

Despite these assurances, some in the U.S. government remain skeptical about the treaty’s future. For instance, Secretary of State Antony Blinken expressed doubts in May 2024 that the W.H.O. would be able to reach a final consensus on the agreement anytime soon. Specifically, he cited the significant disagreements between wealthier and poorer nations over provisions related to medical technology sharing and financial aid.

“On the pandemic agreement, the way things stand right now, I don’t see that concluding in the near term. There’s just no consensus on it,” Blinken said, indicating that the treaty’s fate remains uncertain.

Next, the bill will head to the Senate, where its fate is unclear. If passed, it would require any future pandemic-related international agreement, including the W.H.O. treaty, to undergo Senate scrutiny before being ratified.

For now, the debate over the W.H.O. pandemic treaty and the broader issue of U.S. participation in international agreements continues, with the passage of this bill marking a significant development in the ongoing conversation.