Login
The United Nations (U.N.) General Assembly on Monday adopted a “Political declaration on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response” — calling for stronger global medical and scientific cooperation in the face of the threat of a future pandemic.
The 64-clause declaration passed with a 153-3 vote. The U.S., along with Argentina and Israel, voted against it. New Zealand and Paraguay abstained.
The declaration calls for stronger international cooperation and for activating the World Health Organization’s (WHO) Pandemic Agreement, passed last year.
However, the declaration is legally nonbinding and does not obligate countries to cede sovereignty or impose public health restrictions, including vaccine mandates or lockdowns.
The declaration calls for increased national and international capacity to develop vaccines and other drugs and increased funding for global pandemic preparedness. According to Health Policy Watch, there is a $15 billion shortfall in such funding.
Other key provisions contained in the declaration include:
- A call for early warning, surveillance and laboratory systems to identify potential global health security risks.
- An acknowledgment of the “importance of public health and social measures in controlling, and preventing the spread of infectious diseases, especially those with epidemic and pandemic potential.”
- Measures to “counter and address the negative impacts of health-related misinformation, disinformation, including countering vaccine hesitancy and to foster trust in public health systems and authorities.”
In a statement about the pandemic declaration, WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus welcomed the declaration, calling it a “strong commitment by UN Member States to continue working together on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response.”
But critics took a different view. Valerie Ferrell, policy director of Stand for Health Freedom, said the declaration “is like an unholy political ‘vow renewal.’”
“It’s a grand show reasserting the longstanding UN commitment to a technocratic state buttressed by a surveillance infrastructure,” Ferrell said. “It creates no new legal frameworks or obligations, simply reiterates the UN love for blurring the lines between human rights and animals or the environment, begging for funds, and hunting and killing ‘misinformation’ so people are kept in the dark.”
Dr. David Bell, a public health physician, biotech consultant and senior scholar at the Brownstone Institute, said such declarations are “common” within the U.N. ecosystem and are “essentially meaningless.”
“They are primarily bureaucratic instruments that make people in the secretariat feel better for having achieved ‘something.’ Countries vote for them often because there is nothing enforceable, and the political costs of voting against are better saved for more important votes such as those for treaties,” Bell said.
However, “the whole idea behind the declaration is of concern,” Bell added.
“It is part of a push to divert vast resources from areas of public health that improve wellbeing and life expectancy overall, to a very small area that concentrates on producing saleable commodities for rare but very profitable international outbreaks.”
U.S. forced a vote on the declaration after objecting to some of its provisions
According to UN News, the declaration was slated to be approved last month by consensus — without a vote — at a high-level U.N. meeting, but U.S. objections forced a vote to take place at the General Assembly.
Health Policy Watch reported that the U.S. objected to language in the declaration on “sexual and reproductive health,” which the U.S. delegation said did not exclude “harmful gender ideology” that “is detrimental to the well-being and development of children and undermines parental authority.”
The U.S. delegation also had “strong concerns” over “the excessive and repetitive use of ‘equity’ and its variance” in the declaration. It also opposed mention of the Pandemic Agreement and the International Health Regulations (IHR) — which “commit member states to international agreements to which they are not party.”
New Zealand also opposed the declaration’s reference to the IHR, which is the only binding instrument of international law that relates to public health. The IHR was last amended in 2024.
New Zealand was among a small group of countries that rejected the 2023 IHR amendments that some argued would force states to cede sovereignty to the WHO.
The Trump administration opposed the Pandemic Agreement, a watered-down version of which was passed at last year’s World Health Assembly.
Writing on Substack, Dr. Meryl Nass, a physician and founder of Door to Freedom, said the declaration “is the same old, same old” from organizations like the UN and WHO — but is nevertheless “a non-binding reminder that the cabal hasn’t given up” and is still trying to finalize and enact the Pandemic Agreement.
“It’s not surprising that the U.S. rejected this declaration because President Donald Trump withdrew from the WHO over these same issues,” Ferrell said.
In January 2025, Trump ordered the U.S. to withdraw from the WHO. That withdrawal officially came into effect in January of this year.
The Gateway Pundit reported that Italy objected to language related to “misinformation” and “disinformation” during last month’s negotiations but ultimately voted for the declaration.
“The declaration adopted on 12 October is the latest product of an international system that no voter elects,” wrote Sayer Ji, chairman of the Global Wellness Forum and founder of GreenMedInfo, in a Substack post.
This article was funded by critical thinkers like you.
The Defender is 100% reader-supported. No corporate sponsors. No paywalls. Our writers and editors rely on you to fund stories like this that mainstream media won’t write.
Agreement on pathogen access and sharing could be legally binding
According to The Gateway Pundit, the declaration “raises a serious political question” despite its nonbinding status — namely, “How much influence should international health bureaucracies have over the decisions of sovereign nations?”
Those concerns relate to an associated text — an annex on pathogen access and benefit-sharing (PABS). According to UN News, countries would share biological samples and genetic data in exchange for “any resulting vaccines, treatments and diagnostics” if countries agree to the annex.
Researcher James Roguski told The Defender that Monday’s declaration is a “sideshow to the main event” — the potential adoption of PABS.
Talks on PABS “have stalled amid a standoff between developing countries and some high-income European nations together with the US,” UN News reported.
Last year’s Pandemic Agreement cannot be formally “opened for signature” until talks on PABS are completed.
High-income countries, including the U.S., have objected to sharing potentially valuable technology and intellectual property with lower-income nations.
“Wealthier member states want the less wealthy ones to give up genomes of organisms they find, so that Pharma can make vaccines for them,” Bell said.
Roguski said talks on PABS will continue next month — and that a potentially binding agreement may arise from these ongoing talks, which would be “of great consequence to us all, including the U.S.”
“If the PABS negotiations reach agreement and the Pandemic Agreement is approved by the World Health Assembly in May of 2027, then the next U.S. administration will be able to sign on the Agreement and/or rejoin the WHO,” Roguski said.
Related articles in The Defender
- ‘We Need to Reboot the Whole System’: RFK Jr. Addresses WHO Via Video as Member States Pass Global Pandemic Agreement
- Trump Orders U.S. to Withdraw From World Health Organization
- WHO Exhibiting Signs of ‘Desperation’ as New Zealand, Iran Reject Amendments to International Health Regulations
- WHO Promotes Farrar, Fauci Ally and Architect of COVID Mass Vaccination Policies
- The Treaty is Done’: WHO Pandemic Treaty Defeated, at Least For Now
