Republican governors on international pandemic plan: We will not comply

In yet another example of how all things related to the pandemic have become political, nearly all of the country’s Republican governors have expressed their staunch opposition to a World Health Organization agreement about how nations should collectively prevent, prepare and respond to future global public health emergencies.

While the World Health Organization has said that the global agreement would not take sovereignty away from member nations’ own laws, U.S. governors aren’t buying it. 

“The World Health Organization is attempting one world control over health policy with their new ‘Pandemic Agreement,'” said 24 Republican governors in a joint statement late last month. “Put simply, Republican Governors will not comply.”

The statement comes months before the November election, in which two of the 24 governors who were a part of the August statement are seeking reelection. 

Their opposition to the World Health Organization’s proposed agreement, said Jeffrey Schlegelmilch, director of the National Center for Disaster Preparedness at Columbia University, is likely “an electoral grab” to frame an international pandemic response plan as an expansion of government to appeal to voters who would oppose pandemic-related measures like mask mandates or social distancing protocols. The Republican Governors Association and Georgia, Iowa, South Carolina and Tennessee governors contacted by Route Fifty did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Research shows clear divides among Democrats and Republicans on their views of the nation’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic. A 2022 survey conducted by Pew Research of 10,282 people found that 69% of Republicans thought the country’s pandemic response did little to prioritize respecting individuals’ choices, and 40% said public health in general was prioritized too much. 

Since 2021, the U.S. and other members of the World Health Organization have been working on a draft agreement for a global pandemic response. The latest draft of the pandemic treaty, released in April, directs member states to recognize “the critical role of whole-of-government and whole-of-society approaches at national and community levels … in strengthening pandemic prevention, preparedness, response and health systems recovery.”

The agreement calls for international public health data standards to improve disease surveillance efforts and prevent, detect and respond to public health events such as pandemics. It also directs member nations to support public and private sector efforts to expand the production and distribution of vaccines, personal protective equipment and other pandemic-related health products.

Member nations of the World Health Organization are expected to vote to finalize the pandemic agreement by May 2025.

The most recent statement echoes Republican governors’ May letter to President Joe Biden, claiming the pandemic agreement would “restrict the rights of U.S. citizens, including freedoms such as speech, privacy, travel, choice of medical care, and informed consent, thus violating our Constitution’s core principles.”

While it’s not uncommon for U.S. governors to weigh in on international affairs, Schlegelmilch said, the governors’ statements serve more as a political move than an evidence-driven analysis of the proposed public health agreement. In their May letter, the governors said the public health agreement would “erode sovereignty” and strip elected representatives of their role in setting policy.

In fact, the World Health Organization draft agreement states, “Nothing in the WHO Pandemic Agreement shall be interpreted as providing the WHO Secretariat, including the WHO Director-General, any authority to direct, order, alter or otherwise prescribe the national and/or domestic laws … or to mandate or otherwise impose any requirements that Parties take specific actions, such as ban or accept travellers [sic], impose vaccination mandates or therapeutic or diagnostic measures or implement lockdowns.”

Global agreement or not, Schlegelmilch said, the World Health Organization has little authority over what happens at the state and local government level, and such agreements serve more as a guidance for nations as they draft health policies and regulations. That means governors will likely still have the greatest influence on pandemic-related policies in their states. 

But it's concerning, he added, as Republican-led states could drive disparities in Americans’ well-being amid another pandemic, given some policymakers recent moves to roll back public health protections. 

Oklahoma, for example, recently enacted a law that states Oklahoma “shall not be compelled to engage in the enforcement of … any requirements or mandates issued by the World Health Organization, the United Nations or the World Economic Forum.” The Sooner State also had some of the nation’s loosest mask and social-distancing mandates, and a 2023 analysis from The Lancet found that it could have seen 32% fewer infections if they had adopted similar policies to California, which had more stringent COVID protections. 

Ultimately, the governor’s pushback and letter in opposition to WHO’s efforts, Schlegelmilch said, “is a political knife twist” that does not “serve the public’s health.”