US Reviews OSCE, Eyes IAEA
Washington: After withdrawing from the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), the United States has now rejected the World Health Organization’s 2024 International Health Regulations (IHR) amendments, describing these decisions as part of a “smarter, more strategic approach” to international engagement.
US State Department Spokesperson Tammy Bruce announced the actions during a press briefing on July 22, 2025, in coordination with the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), emphasising the administration’s commitment to maintaining national control over public health policy and aligning U.S. participation in international organisations with national priorities. The announcements are part of a broader review of U.S. involvement in global bodies, including the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), as the administration seeks to redefine its global role.
The 2024 IHR amendments, adopted by the World Health Assembly on June 1, 2024, modify a 2005 framework governing global responses to public health emergencies. According to Bruce, these amendments expanded the WHO’s authority to include not only public health emergencies of international concern but also “events or conditions” that could potentially become emergencies, allowing the organisation to independently designate international health threats. The amendments were set to become legally binding by July 19, 2025, for WHO member states, raising concerns in the U.S. about their applicability despite its withdrawal from the WHO, initiated on January 20, 2025. A joint statement from Secretary of State Marco Rubio and HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. highlighted that the amendments could enable the WHO to impose measures like global lockdowns or travel restrictions for “potential public health risks.” The administration expressed concerns that the amendments’ broad terminology risks overreach, potentially centralising global health governance and echoing issues from the COVID-19 pandemic, during which it believes international health bodies limited scientific debate and restricted free speech. The rejection aims to ensure that U.S. public health policy remains under domestic authority.
The withdrawal from UNESCO was attributed to the organisation’s focus on the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals, viewed by the administration as misaligned with U.S. foreign policy objectives, and its 2011 admission of the “state of Palestine” as a member-state, seen as contrary to U.S. policy and contributing to anti-Israel rhetoric. Bruce noted that this decision stems from President Trump’s executive order on January 20, 2025, directing a review of U.S. participation in international organisations to ensure alignment with national interests. The withdrawal follows a precedent set in 2018, when the U.S. exited UNESCO over similar concerns, though that decision was reversed in 2023 by the Joe Biden administration.
In response to a question about the absence of U.S. representatives in the OSCE, which focuses on European security and human rights, and the IAEA, which oversees global nuclear safety, Bruce addressed concerns about potential disengagement. She clarified that the administration is reviewing participation in these organisations as part of the executive order, assessing whether involvement aligns with U.S. priorities. The absence of representatives in these bodies is under evaluation, and Bruce emphasised that the administration’s approach prioritises targeted, efficient engagement over broad multilateral commitments. This strategy, she explained, seeks to maintain U.S. influence globally by focusing on actions that deliver tangible outcomes for American interests and international stability.
The decisions have elicited mixed reactions. Congressional figures, such as Representatives Chip Roy and Tom Tiffany, supported the IHR rejection, citing the WHO’s perceived failures during COVID-19 and the amendments’ rushed adoption process, which they claim lacked sufficient public input. Roy described the WHO as “discredited,” and Tiffany backed legislation to defund and withdraw from the organisation. Conversely, public health experts, such as Lawrence Gostin of Georgetown University, argued that the WHO withdrawal, which underpins the IHR rejection, could undermine global health security, given the U.S.’s role as the WHO’s largest financial contributor, providing 18% of its $6.8 billion 2024-2025 budget. Gostin noted potential legal challenges, as the U.S. entry into the WHO in 1948 was authorised by Congress, possibly requiring congressional approval for withdrawal. The WHO expressed regret over the U.S. decision, emphasising its role in coordinating global health responses.
The IHR amendments aimed to strengthen global pandemic preparedness through measures like a new “pandemic emergency” category and equitable access to health resources, but the administration argues they risk undue influence on domestic policy and fail to address WHO’s vulnerabilities to external political pressures. The review of OSCE and IAEA participation suggests potential further adjustments, which could impact U.S. involvement in areas like nuclear oversight and European security cooperation. As the administration continues its evaluation, these decisions will shape how the U.S. balances national sovereignty with its role in global health, cultural, and security frameworks.
– global bihari bureau
