As the WHO pushes for global control over pandemic response, the US has developed its own plan. We know the WHO plan is diametrically opposed to health freedom and ignores the role of natural medicine entirely. Does the America First plan address these problems?
Listen to the audio version of this article:
THE TOPLINE
- The WHO’s Pandemic Agreement and International Health Regulations amendments would centralize power under a global authority, while the America First Global Health Strategy emphasizes national sovereignty and bilateral partnerships.
- The WHO model erodes national and individual autonomy through binding global mandates, whereas the America First plan prioritizes US control—but still centers on promoting pharmaceutical solutions.
- Both frameworks focus narrowly on vaccines and drugs, neglecting prevention, natural medicine, individual choice, early treatment options, and regional or local tailoring of solutions—ignoring lessons learned from COVID and offering little in the way of progress towards medical autonomy or health freedom.
Two visions for the future of global health are currently on the table. On one side stands the World Health Organization’s (WHO) Pandemic Agreement and amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR)—a centralized, legally binding framework that would give the WHO sweeping authority to control pandemic responses across member nations. On the other is the newly released America First Global Health Strategy, which rejects global governance in favor of bilateral partnerships and national control.
From a health freedom standpoint—one that prioritizes individual autonomy (including early treatment and building natural immunity), transparency, and national sovereignty—the differences are quite stark.
WHO’s Top-Down Model
We’ve critically analyzed the WHO’s plans for pandemic control in several previous articles. What we see happening is—and let’s be blunt—nothing short of the creation of a global pandemic cartel. You’ll be told by the WHO Director-General when the next pandemic hits, made fearful of the latest virus, then offered a quick-fix: a rushed, emergency-approved vaccine or gene-based drug. They’ll claim it’s all about “following the science”, but in fact, behind the scenes, there are huge efforts at manipulating data to push a specific agenda. Anyone interested in seeing how vaccine science was manipulated during the COVID pandemic may be interested to read the latest Substack from @unbekoming.
Critics will be silenced, alternatives discredited, and the complexity of our immune system ignored to make way for their one-size-fits-all solution.
This top-down model poses clear risks to health freedom. Binding obligations and centralized authority can easily evolve into de facto control over national public health responses—undermining local laws, democratic oversight, and individual rights. Physicians are prevented from being able to work directly with patients, without interference from authorities or medical boards, to deliver the most effective remedies.
America First Strategy
By contrast, the America First Global Health Strategy proposes a decentralized model rooted in bilateral cooperation and national self-reliance. As the US has withdrawn from the WHO, there is currently no threat that international health bureaucrats will dictate a US pandemic response that jeopardizes personal health autonomy. But that might well change with the passing of the current administration.
The America First strategy aims to reform how foreign aid is delivered by better integrating these programs with the work of local health authorities so individual states have better capacity to manage their own affairs. That’s something of a plus.
The report notes that during the HIV/AIDS crisis, the US built new health delivery systems in partner countries, often by working through third-party non-governmental organizations (NGOs). While effective at the time, this approach has evolved into a fragmented and inefficient network of programs operating in isolation from national health systems. As the report puts it, decades of siloed efforts have created “parallel procurement systems, parallel supply chains, program-specific healthcare workers, and program-specific data systems” that are inefficient. The Strategy aims to better integrate aid efforts with national health systems.
This is in line with what we’ve been calling for: a more decentralized approach whereby pandemic response is managed at the local level, with some international coordination but not a top-down approach that ignores nuance and local differences.
But the America First strategy is not without flaws. It explicitly promises to “leverage our foreign assistance to promote American companies and American innovations abroad,” including procurement from US firms and encouraging other nations to adopt American-made health products. While this can refer to diagnostics and other healthcare equipment, in pandemic situations it could also mean promoting American-made vaccines and drugs domestically and to the rest of the world. President Trump’s deal-making with Albert Bourla, CEO of Pfizer, during Operation Warp Speed and the more recent drug pricing negotiation (see here and here) show that Big Pharma remains deeply entrenched in shaping US health policy.
Despite their differences, both the WHO and America First strategies are essentially built around the same pharmaceutical model. The WHO centers on so-called equitable distribution of vaccines and drugs (i.e. the creation of a global market with the rich countries paying for or subsidizing poor countries), while the America First plan focuses on promoting American-made products abroad. But where is the discussion of alternative and natural treatments? Nowhere to be found. Both visions for “pandemic preparedness” seem based on a one-size-fits-all paradigm that doesn’t work, ignoring prevention, natural immunity, and integrative approaches that empower individuals rather than corporations.
| Issue | WHO Pandemic Agreement & IHR Amendments | America First Global Health Strategy |
| Core Approach | Multilateral, binding international agreement under WHO authority | Bilateral, nation-led framework centered on U.S. sovereignty |
| Decision-Making | Centralized—new “Conference of the Parties” could adopt implementing rules binding on members | Decentralized, with the US helping to strengthen and enhance the ability of local governments to respond to outbreaks |
| Equity & Access | Emphasizes “One Health,” and equitable access to pandemic countermeasures (i.e. vaccines and drugs) | Prioritizes national preparedness, US manufacturing, and commercial partnerships |
| Accountability | To unelected bureaucrats at international institutions (WHO, UN) | To US citizens and national oversight |
| Sovereignty Risk | High—member states are beholden to the dictates of the WHO, which defines when a pandemic occurs and how countries should respond | Low—explicitly guards against international mandates |
| Health Autonomy | Under threat; global pandemic response focused on drugs and vaccines while alternative viewpoints are smeared as “misinformation” | Under threat; no discussion of preserving health autonomy in the Strategy; emphasis on distribution of US-made pharmaceutical products to make America “more prosperous” |
The Bottom Line
Neither the WHO’s centralized treaty nor the America First strategy offers a true path to health freedom. One seeks to hand unprecedented power to unelected international bureaucrats; the other risks deepening the grip of the pharmaceutical industry under the banner of national interest. Both could arguably reduce health during a pandemic or disease outbreak to a matter of vaccine or drug distribution, ignoring the broader foundations of wellness—nutrition, prevention, natural medicine, and the resilience of our immune systems.
Please share this article widely in your networks.
