The US decision to block a major international declaration on pandemic preparedness has “severely weakened” the global effort and suggests Washington is intent on undermining cooperation between countries, according to Prof Lawrence Gostin, a leading global health law expert at Georgetown University.
The UN general assembly was scheduled to approve a political declaration on preventing, preparing for and responding to pandemics on 25 September, following a high-level meeting focused on the issue.
The proposed declaration called on nations to work together in solidarity against global health threats. It also warned that the international community remains ill-equipped to confront another pandemic.
But the US representative said Washington was “not in a position” to endorse the text, preventing it from being adopted by consensus. Under the UN’s consensus procedure, negotiated documents are considered approved unless a member state objects.
Italy also opposed the declaration. The EU representative said the bloc remained “fully and unreservedly committed to the important overarching objective”, but pointed to “red lines” over references to intellectual property. A central dispute concerns whether countries should voluntarily transfer technology or be required to do so—an issue also blocking progress on the World Health Organization’s pandemic treaty.
Dr Erica Schwartz, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said several major questions had yet to be resolved. She cited “the inclusion of divisive ideologies that lack definitional consensus”, as well as references to separate WHO-led negotiations on equitable access to vaccines and medicines during a future pandemic.
The Trump administration was also reportedly unhappy with language on equity and universal access to sexual and reproductive healthcare. Earlier this year, President Trump expanded the so-called “global gag” rule, barring US aid recipients from abortion-related work as well as diversity, equity and inclusion programmes and activities linked to what the administration calls “gender ideology”.
A separate WHO agreement outlining the international response to future pandemics remains stalled as governments struggle to settle rules on pathogen access and benefit sharing. The dispute centres on what countries should receive in vaccines and treatments in return for sharing data about emerging diseases detected within their borders. The US withdrew from the WHO shortly after Trump returned to office.
Although declarations of this kind are not legally binding, they are intended to demonstrate political commitment and establish a common direction for governments.
Gostin said the declaration’s impact would depend on whether countries were willing to support and act on it. “Since this is a political declaration, its value is only as strong as the political will to adopt and implement its provisions. The US decision to dissent severely weakens the document.
“For many decades, it was American financing and scientific innovations that were the bedrock of outbreak detection and response. This signals a clear US intention not to cooperate globally to health threats common to all nations. There is no rational reason to reject a political commitment to preventing and responding to dangerous outbreaks. The only thing gained by the Trump administration is to put a stick in the wheels of international cooperation.”
The US has also faced accusations that it is using aid negotiations to secure individual agreements with poorer countries on terms that favour Washington.
The declaration is nevertheless expected to pass when it returns to the UN general assembly. A majority vote, rather than consensus, will be required at that stage.
Helen Clark, New Zealand’s former prime minister and co-chair of the Independent Panel for Pandemic Preparedness and Response, said it was “disappointing that the high level meeting was not asked to endorse the political declaration which had been negotiated by member states”. She added: “Agreeing to collaborate to prevent, prepare for and respond to pandemics should not be controversial.”
Eloise Todd, executive director and founder of Resilience Action Network International, said: “It is unacceptable that member states were unable to advance a political declaration at the close of the high level meeting on Friday, and an unfortunate reminder of the continued challenges to drive consensus for the global good in the current geopolitical environment.”
