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.

From LifeSiteNews

By Jonathon Van Maren

Even the UN has described Canada’s assisted suicide program as ‘state-sponsored eugenics’ and called upon the government to curtail plans to expand euthanasia access.

In Canada, we kill the disabled. Over 90 percent of babies diagnosed with Down syndrome in the womb are aborted; pre-born children diagnosed with other disabilities usually meet the same fate. But for decades, our Nazi-style lethal ableism was limited to those not yet born. 

With the expansion of euthanasia eligibility to those suffering solely from disability or mental illness scheduled to come into effect in 2027, that is slated to change. Disability groups have been nearly unanimous in their condemnation of this plan, which has been delayed twice by the Liberal government due to pushback from across Canadian society – but not cancelled entirely. 

Even the United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, examining Canada’s compliance with the U.N. Conventions on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities earlier this year, concluded that Canada was embarking on “state-sponsored eugenics” and called on the Canadian government to scrap these plans and roll back the expanding euthanasia regime. The disability rights group Inclusion Canada, as well as several others, had written to the body to sound the alarm about Canada’s euthanasia policies. 

Canadians with physical disabilities have been attempting to get the government’s attention for years, with stories of those who seeking euthanasia because they cannot get the support or care they need periodically dominating international headlines. (This ugly reality is best encapsulated in a famous cartoon showing stairs leading to a healthcare provider, with the only wheelchair ramp leading to “euthanasia.”) These stories have not yet been heeded by the government. 

A story recently posted to X by Samantha Smith, a victim advocate and survivor of the grooming and rape gangs in the U.K., highlights Canada’s grim slippery slope. It is worth reading in full: 

A family member of mine is a nurse in Canada. They performed several assisted dying procedures at the care home they worked at, before refusing to continue. In one case, the family of a mentally disabled man decided they wanted him to be euthanised. He didn’t want to die. But my family member was legally forced to end his life. They held his hand while he told them “I’m hungry” and “I’m thirsty.”

That poor man didn’t understand what was happening to him as he was pumped full of medication that would end his life, and my family member wept for the soul that was being lost unnecessarily. He wasn’t terminally ill. He wasn’t particularly old. He wasn’t dying. He didn’t want to die. But he didn’t have a choice. Because his life was deemed dispensable by his family, and the Government gave them the power to end his life regardless of his needs or wishes.

And when my family member told their workplace that they couldn’t continue performing these procedures – that their conscience wouldn’t allow it – they were told that it was their “legal duty” as a nurse. They still refused. But not everyone will have the moral fibre or bravery of my family member.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and this is exactly what the Assisted Dying Bill opens the door to. It starts with “choice” and “dignity.” But suicide isn’t only done “when the patient wants it.” And the countries where it is already legalised have shown us the grim reality. In the Netherlands, 40% of euthanasia deaths occur without patient consent. In Canada, it has been offered to Paralympians who only asked for a mobility aid. If it can happen there; it will happen here. People will be killed against their will.

When asked for public corroboration, Smith stated: “No, my family member will not ‘go public.’ Yes, I trust his testimony. No, he is not a horrible, awful person. Yes, this is really happening. The black letter law vs. the grim reality are two very different things. Just because the law was supposed to protect against coercion or non-consenting procedures … doesn’t mean it is.” 

I wish I didn’t believe her, but I do. I believe her because euthanasia providers have ended the lives of people like Alan Nichols, who was taken to the hospital by family members after a psychiatric episode and euthanized days later. I believe her because leaked documents show that Ontario’s euthanasia providers have tracked 428 cases of possible criminal violations without a single case being referred to law enforcement. I believe her because Canada’s medical establishment already embraces lethal ableism, and our government does too.  

Canada is already killing those with disability or mental illness; thus far, euthanasia practitioners are forced to come up with other reasons for doing so (the written reason for Alan Nichols’ lethal injection was “hearing loss”). But once eligibility requirements are expanded in 2027, the floodgates will open. There is still time to stop this expansion, and we must doing everything we can to do so. The lives of people with disabilities depend on it. 

---

Jonathon Van Maren

Jonathon’s writings have been translated into more than six languages and in addition to LifeSiteNews, has been published in the National Post, National Review, First Things, The Federalist, The American Conservative, The Stream, the Jewish Independent, the Hamilton Spectator, Reformed Perspective Magazine, and LifeNews, among others. He is a contributing editor to The European Conservative.

His insights have been featured on CTV, Global News, and the CBC, as well as over twenty radio stations. He regularly speaks on a variety of social issues at universities, high schools, churches, and other functions in Canada, the United States, and Europe.

He is the author of The Culture War, Seeing is Believing: Why Our Culture Must Face the Victims of Abortion, Patriots: The Untold Story of Ireland’s Pro-Life Movement, Prairie Lion: The Life and Times of Ted Byfield, and co-author of A Guide to Discussing Assisted Suicide with Blaise Alleyne.

Jonathon serves as the communications director for the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform.