Biden Administration Eager to Sign WHO Pandemic Treaty

The Biden administration signaled its support for the World Health Organization’s (WHO) new pandemic treaty expected to be finalized at its World Health Assembly in Geneva, Switzerland, the final week of May.

Pamela Hamamoto, the State Department official representing the United States at the meeting, stated that “America is committed to signing the treaty that will ‘build a stronger global health structure,’” wrote John Tierney, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and a contributing editor, in the City Journal.

Adoption of a legally binding pact governing how countries around the world are to respond to future outbreaks like the recent COVID-19 pandemic has been the goal of WHO-directed negotiations since 2021. The WHO, a United Nations-sponsored organization, came under sharp criticism for its handling of the coronavirus.

On May 8, attorneys general from 22 states sent President Biden a letter saying they oppose the accords which will turn the WHO into the “world’s governor of public health.” The letter says giving the WHO such authority violates the U.S. Constitution, and could lead to censorship of dissenting opinions, undermine Constitutional freedoms, and give the WHO power to declare any “emergency” besides health including climate change, gun violence, and immigration.

Missteps on COVID-19

In a post on Twitter (now X) on January 14, 2020, the WHO stated: “Preliminary investigations conducted by the Chinese authorities have found no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission of the novel #coronavirus (2019-nCoV) identified in #Wuhan, #China.”

Two weeks later, on January 30, 2020, WHO’s Emergency Committee issued a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC), stating, “The Committee emphasized that the declaration of a PHEIC should be seen in the spirit of support and appreciation of China, its people, and the actions China has taken on the front lines of this outbreak, with transparency and, it is to be hoped, success.”

The WHO’s initial investigation into the origins of COVID-19 concluded it was improbable that the virus resulted from experiments at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, though it later acknowledged that it could have come from a lab leak at Wuhan. The WHO’s investigation, which was thwarted by Chinese officials, ultimately reached no conclusion. President Trump announced the United States’ withdrawal from the WHO, a decision reversed by President Joe Biden on January 20, 2021.

More Smoke and Mirrors

Further undermining the WHO’s credibility in setting policies on managing a future pandemic, the group decided to include Peter Daszak, president of the New York-based EcoHealth Alliance, in its initial investigation into the origins of COVID-19.

Daszak and EcoHealth Alliance prominently featured in an investigation by the U.S. House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic into the government’s funding and lack of oversight of gain-of-function research at the Wuhan lab, for which EcoHealth received grants from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the National Institutes of Health.

In an interim report released on May 1, 2024, the subcommittee said there is “significant evidence that Daszak violated the terms of the NIH grant awarded to EcoHealth. Given Dr. Daszak’s apparent contempt for the American people and disregard for legal reporting requirements, the Select Subcommittee recommends the formal debarment of and a criminal investigation into EcoHealth and its President.”

After the release of the report, U.S. Rep. Tom Emmer (R-MN) told the Washington Examiner, “The World Health Organization covered up the Chinese Communist Party’s role in developing and spreading COVID-19 and has since failed to hold them accountable for the global pandemic that killed millions, upended our daily lives, and destroyed thousands of small businesses.”

Public Fed Up

The WHO’s shaky record on COVID, including its close ties to China and Peter Daszak, have taken a toll on the public’s willingness to accept its leadership in any future pandemics.

A poll conducted by McLaughlin & Associates for the Center for Security Policy, released on April 17, found that 54.6 percent of likely voters oppose tying the United States to a WHO pandemic treaty, and just 29.0 percent favor such a move.

Agreements Bypass Congress

While providing few details, at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland in January, WHO Director General Tedros Ghebreyesus said, “The pandemic agreement can bring all the experience, all the challenges we have faced and all the solutions into one. That agreement could help us prepare for the future in a better way.”

The “treaty” the Biden administration is eager to sign will likely be an executive agreement, like the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement, which was not presented to the U.S. Senate for ratification but contained “commitments” President Barack Obama pledged to honor.

Also in the works in Geneva are amendments to International Health Regulations, which Congress would not approve or disapprove.COVID

WHO’s Power Grab

Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WS), sent a letter to President Biden signed by all 49 Republican senators, expressing their concern about the powers that could be handed to WHO, on May 2.

“Some of the over 300 proposals for amendments made by member states would substantially increase the WHO’s emergency powers and constitute intolerable infringements upon U.S. sovereignty,” the letter states.

Craig Rucker, president of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), who has attended UN-sponsored conferences around the world for over 30 years, says the WHO is a destructive force.

“WHO’s performance during COVID-19 was a lethal combination of incompetence and dishonesty,” said Rucker. “The organization failed to protect public health and went to extraordinary lengths to cover up China’s role in fostering gain-of-function research at the Wuhan lab. Ratification of any WHO pandemic treaty would be nothing short of a travesty.”

Bonner Russell Cohen, Ph.D. ([email protected]) is a senior fellow at the National Center for Public Policy Research.

Related Topics:#BonnerRussellCohen #HeartlandDailyNews #WHO #WHOPandemicTreaty #WorldHealthAssembly

Up Next

Feds spend $3 million to fly 182 politicians and bureaucrats to climate conference

Don't Miss

Biden’s Climate Agenda Is Running Headfirst Into A Wall Of His Own Making

Todayville

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Large-scale energy investments remain a pipe dream

Business / 7 hours ago

I Was Hired To Root Out Bias At NIH. The Nation’s Health Research Agency Is Still Sick

Daily Caller / 17 hours ago

Trump Gives Zelenskyy Until Thanksgiving To Agree On Peace Deal, With U.S. Weapons And Intel On The Line

Alberta

Alberta bill would protect freedom of expression for doctors, nurses, other professionals

Published on November 22, 2025

Todayville

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

‘Peterson’s law,’ named for Canadian psychologist Jordan Peterson, was introduced by Alberta Premier Danielle Smith.

Alberta’s Conservative government introduced a new law that will set “clear expectations” for professional regulatory bodies to respect freedom of speech on social media and online for doctors, nurses, engineers, and other professionals.

The new law, named “Peterson’s law” after Canadian psychologist Jordan Peterson, who was canceled by his regulatory body, was introduced Thursday by Alberta Premier Danielle Smith.

“Professionals should never fear losing their license or career because of a social media post, an interview, or a personal opinion expressed on their own time,” Smith said in a press release sent to media and LifeSiteNews.

“Alberta’s government is restoring fairness and neutrality so regulators focus on competence and ethics, not policing beliefs. Every Albertan has the right to speak freely without ideological enforcement or intimidation, and this legislation makes that protection real.”

The law, known as Bill 13, the Regulated Professions Neutrality Act, will “set clear expectations for professional regulatory bodies to ensure professionals’ right to free expression is protected.”

According to the government, the new law will “Limit professional regulatory bodies from disciplining professionals for expressive off-duty conduct, except in specific circumstances such as threats of physical violence or a criminal conviction.”

It will also restrict mandatory training “unrelated to competence or ethics, such as diversity, equity, and inclusion training.”

Bill 13, once it becomes law, which is all but guaranteed as Smith’s United Conservative Party (UCP) holds a majority, will also “create principles of neutrality that prohibit professional regulatory bodies from assigning value, blame or different treatment to individuals based on personally held views or political beliefs.”

As reported by LifeSiteNews, Peterson has been embattled with the College of Psychologists of Ontario (CPO) after it mandated he undergo social media “training” to keep his license following posts he made on X, formerly Twitter, criticizing Trudeau and LGBT activists.

Early this year, LifeSiteNews reported that the CPO had selected Peterson’s “re-education coach” for having publicly opposed the LGBT agenda.

The Alberta government directly referenced Peterson’s (who is from Alberta originally) plight with the CPO, noting “the disciplinary proceedings against Dr. Jordan Peterson by the College of Psychologists of Ontario, demonstrate how regulatory bodies can extend their reach into personal expression rather than professional competence.”

“Similar cases involving nurses, engineers and other professionals revealed a growing pattern: individuals facing investigations, penalties or compulsory ideological training for off-duty expressive conduct. These incidents became a catalyst, confirming the need for clear legislative boundaries that protect free expression while preserving professional standards.”

Alberta Minister of Justice and Attorney General Mickey Amery said regarding Bill 13 that the new law makes that protection of professionals “real and holds professional regulatory bodies to a clear standard.”

Last year, Peterson formally announced his departure from Canada in favor of moving to the United States, saying his birth nation has become a “totalitarian hell hole.” 

Digital ID

Roblox to Mandate Facial and ID Verification

Published on November 21, 2025

Todayville

By Cindy Harper

The platform’s age checks are part of a bigger push to create online spaces policed by biometrics.

Roblox is tightening control over who can talk and share content on its platform by linking access to its communication and social features with facial and ID-based age checks.

The rollout begins this week as an optional process and will become compulsory in December in countries including Australia, the Netherlands, and New Zealand, reaching the United States and other regions by early 2026.

The company says these steps are meant to make its vast online world safer for younger audiences, restricting how players of different ages can interact inside user-created “Experiences.”

To take part in chat features, users must now verify their age either by scanning a government-issued ID or recording a short facial video through Persona, an outside verification company.

Conversations are limited to others in the same or adjacent age groups unless users connect through “Trusted Connections,” which verifies they have a real-world relationship.

Roblox says the goal is to limit unsafe interactions and hopes the model will become “a new industry standard.”

While promoted as a safety improvement, this model also signals a move toward identity-linked participation in online spaces.

Digital ID verification effectively removes the anonymity that has long been part of internet culture.

More: Texas Sues Roblox Over Child Safety Failures, Joining Multi-State Push for Digital ID

It ties access to personal credentials, leaving fewer opportunities for users to interact without surrendering identifiable data.

The same technologies now appearing on entertainment platforms are increasingly being discussed by US policymakers as potential requirements for accessing social media, adult content, or even general-purpose platforms.

Several US states have already passed or proposed laws mandating age verification or digital ID checks for online activity, a trend that privacy advocates warn could erode personal freedom and create databases of sensitive personal information.

According to Roblox, “information uploaded to Persona is retained for a period of 30 days” before deletion.

Persona’s privacy policy indicates that it may collect extensive information, including device identifiers, geolocation data, and records from brokers and public sources.

This wide net of data collection extends well beyond what is required to confirm age, deepening concerns about how biometric and ID data could be reused or shared.

The company has not specified exact rollout dates for all markets but expects global enforcement to be completed within a year.

This makes Roblox the first major online platform to require facial age checks for chat participation.

The move comes as Roblox faces ongoing lawsuits and public pressure related to reports of grooming and child exploitation on the platform.

On the same day the company revealed its latest update, advocacy groups UltraViolet and ParentsTogether Action hosted an online protest, submitting a petition signed by 10,000 parents and grandparents calling for stronger child safety rules.

Roblox also introduced a new Safety Center, described as “a dedicated resource for parents and caregivers that provides clear guidance and tools to help them make informed decisions, set up Parental Controls, and support their child’s online experience.”

Still, the underlying trade-off remains significant. Roblox’s “Facial Media Capture Privacy Notice” confirms that it may conduct “other facial media processing” for “safety, assurance, or feature-specific purposes,” though the company says “Roblox does not use such facial media to identify you personally.”

Yet by normalizing ID scans and biometric checks, the company moves closer to a model of online life where anonymity is the exception rather than the rule, a change that could permanently alter how people experience privacy in digital environments.