MxM News

Quick Hit:

• The U.S. State Department and HHS transmitted the official rejection of the 2024 amendments to the WHO’s IHR.
• Officials cited threats to national sovereignty, vague terminology, and the WHO’s political susceptibility—particularly to China—as grounds for rejection.
• The amendments would have mandated WHO-led responses, digital health documentation, and “equitable access” initiatives regardless of U.S. withdrawal from the WHO.

RFK Jr. just announced he has rejected the WHO’s draconian new pandemic treaty.

Every American should care about this.

“Last year, the World Health Organization’s governing body made some far-reaching amendments to its international health regulations, otherwise known as the… pic.twitter.com/GI9UzsTrKv

— MAHA PAC🗽 (@MAHA_PAC) July 18, 2025

Diving Deeper:

The rejection represents a sharp rebuke of the World Health Assembly’s 2024 amendments to the International Health Regulations (2005), which sought to centralize global pandemic decision-making power within the WHO. Kennedy and Rubio emphasized the amendments’ “vague and broad” language and their potential to create policy rooted in politics and global “solidarity” rather than science and national interest.

Among the most controversial changes were new authorities for the WHO to unilaterally declare health emergencies, coordinate international responses, and guide member states toward “equitable access” to vaccines and other health commodities. The amendments also encouraged countries to implement digital health documents—raising red flags for privacy and surveillance concerns.

“The amendments risk unwarranted interference with our national sovereign right to make health policy,” the joint statement read. Kennedy and Rubio specifically criticized the lack of public input in drafting the new rules and warned that WHO directives could suppress legitimate scientific debate and restrict Americans’ freedom of speech under the guise of “controlling misinformation.”

The officials pointed to the WHO’s well-documented failures during the COVID-19 pandemic, including its deference to the Chinese Communist Party, as a stark example of why international bodies should not be granted binding authority over U.S. domestic policy. “These amendments… fail to adequately address the WHO’s susceptibility to political influence and censorship—most notably from China—during outbreaks,” the statement noted.

Even more alarming, the statement highlighted that the amended rules would have bound the U.S. regardless of its current status in the WHO, essentially imposing obligations on a nation that is no longer part of the organization. This drew particular concern from Rubio, who has long warned against ceding U.S. autonomy to global institutions.

In reaffirming their commitment to “put Americans first,” Kennedy and Rubio vowed to continue resisting international encroachments on U.S. freedoms. “We will not tolerate international policies that infringe on Americans’ speech, privacy, or personal liberties,” they declared.

This formal rejection marks a victory for critics of globalism and top-down health mandates, signaling that under the current administration, American decision-makers are prioritizing sovereignty, transparency, and constitutional protections over global consensus driven by unelected bureaucrats.

MxM News

Quick Hit:

Jeffrey Epstein’s former attorney Alan Dershowitz says there was never a “client list,” calling the claim fiction in a Wall Street Journal op-ed. He also defended President Trump, saying there’s no evidence of any improper or questionable behavior.

Key Details:

• Dershowitz wrote that Epstein “never created a ‘client list,’” and clarified that the FBI only documented names brought up by alleged victims in interviews, which were redacted in released files.
• He stressed that none of the redacted names are current officeholders and added that the veracity of the accusations remains unknown.
• Dismissing rumors of hidden cameras used to entrap guests, Dershowitz said surveillance tapes existed only in public areas and were installed by law enforcement—not Epstein.

Diving Deeper:

In a Wall Street Journal op-ed this week, constitutional attorney Alan Dershowitz addressed lingering speculation surrounding the late Jeffrey Epstein, his alleged surveillance operation, and his reported ties to public figures. Dershowitz, who represented Epstein years ago and has consistently challenged many media narratives surrounding the case, said the facts don’t support the sensational claims.

“Epstein never created a ‘client list,’” Dershowitz wrote, pushing back on the widely circulated notion that Epstein maintained a record of high-profile individuals for the purpose of blackmail. He clarified that the FBI had compiled names mentioned by alleged victims during interviews, but that those names were redacted in publicly released documents. “We don’t know whether the accusations are true,” he added. “The names mentioned don’t include any current officeholders.”

Dershowitz also sought to debunk claims that Epstein maintained a secret camera system in his guest bedrooms to entrap powerful visitors. “There are videotapes, but they are of public areas of his Palm Beach, Fla., home,” he wrote. According to Dershowitz, those surveillance cameras were installed by police after Epstein reported that money and a firearm were stolen from the property. “I am not aware of video cameras in guest bedrooms,” he added.

Turning to President Donald Trump, Dershowitz flatly denied that any evidence exists linking him to wrongdoing. “Open records show an acquaintance between Epstein and President Trump many years ago,” he wrote, before emphasizing that the relationship ended long ago. “That relationship ended when President Trump reportedly banned Epstein from Mar-a-Lago, long before becoming president the first time.”

“I have seen nothing that would suggest anything improper or even questionable by President Trump,” Dershowitz concluded.

His remarks arrive amid a resurgence of political and media interest in Epstein’s associations. But Dershowitz’s message is clear: much of the speculation is unsupported by evidence, and President Trump’s name should not be dragged into narratives that have no basis in fact.