Introduction
The Washington Post recently reported that the World Health Organization (WHO) adopted a global pandemic preparedness agreement without the support of the United States, following President Donald Trump’s inauguration-day withdrawal. This sparked user concerns over the practical implications: if the U.S. withdraws from global pandemic planning, who would America rely on in a future crisis, especially under a domestic system led by Robert F. Kennedy Jr.? This fact-check explores whether the article presents an accurate, complete picture and whether concerns about U.S. pandemic readiness are justified.
Historical Context
The COVID-19 pandemic underscored the importance of international cooperation in monitoring, reporting, and responding to public health threats. The WHO was criticized for delays in declaring an emergency but remained central to coordinating global responses. The idea of a pandemic agreement gained traction in 2021 to strengthen collective preparedness. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., now serving as U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary, has long been skeptical of major health institutions and vaccines, presenting a stark shift in U.S. global health policy.
Fact-Check: Specific Claims
Claim #1: “The United States… was notably absent from the vote, its delegation pulled after President Donald Trump withdrew the country from the organization on his Inauguration Day.”
This claim is accurate. On January 20, 2025, President Donald Trump reinitiated the U.S. withdrawal from the WHO—repeating an action he pursued during his first term. Multiple reports, including those from Associated Press and Reuters, confirm that the U.S. halted participation in the vote and did not offer support for the agreement. It is correct that the U.S. is no longer an active WHO member as of early 2025. However, the article omits the nuance that withdrawal from the WHO takes one year to formally complete due to treaty obligations unless Congress intervenes.
Claim #2: “The WHO Pandemic Agreement includes measures to bolster international coordination on pandemic preparedness… and introduces a mechanism for countries to share genetic information about dangerous pathogens.”
This claim is verified. The WHO Intergovernmental Negotiating Body finalized the agreement in May 2025. Documents on the WHO website outline measures for improved preparedness, surveillance cooperation, and equitable access to vaccines and treatments. The referenced “Pathogen Access and Benefit Sharing” (PABS) system is real, modeled after existing systems such as the Global Influenza Surveillance and Response System (GISRS). However, the article could have offered more detail about the PABS being under negotiation and not yet fully operational.
Claim #3: “RFK Jr….called for a ‘reboot [of] the whole system’ and criticized the WHO’s past pandemic response.”
This is accurately quoted, but missing context. Yes, Kennedy criticized the WHO for what he considers institutional failures during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the article does not clarify that Kennedy’s broader position aligns with his longstanding campaign rhetoric, which supports decentralizing health governance and promoting U.S.-led solutions. His call for a reboot is not accompanied by any detailed plan, and no formal alternative pandemic preparedness framework has been published by the HHS to date. Thus, while the quote is accurate, readers are left without clarity on what the proposed “reboot” actually entails.
Claim #4: “The WHO agreement was overwhelmingly passed… 124 votes in favor, 11 abstentions and no objections.”
This claim also holds up. According to the official vote count provided by the World Health Assembly, the numbers match: 124 member states voted in favor, 11 abstained, and no official objections were recorded. However, abstentions can carry political weight, and the lack of U.S. support—as the WHO’s largest historical contributor—is more consequential than the article implies. It could have further explored which key countries abstained and why that matters.
Conclusion
The article provides a broadly accurate overview of the WHO’s adoption of a pandemic agreement without U.S. support and RFK Jr.’s opposition to it. Its factual claims about the vote result, the agreement’s purpose, and Kennedy’s reaction are all well-documented. However, the piece lacks important context regarding the implications of U.S. withdrawal and what an RFK-led “reboot” might look like. It frames criticisms in quotes but does not sufficiently analyze their substance. Overall, the reporting is factual but would benefit from deeper explanation of the domestic consequences and global risks associated with the U.S.’s absence from coordinated plans.
Encourage Readers to Take Action
Want to cut through the noise and get to the truth faster? Submit your own article to be fact-checked for free. Download the DBUNK app today and follow us for updates as we fight misinformation together.
Link to Original Article
Read the original article here
