Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 2024-05-08 WHO Letter Final

    Uploaded by

    lillian
    20K views4 pages
    Daily Caller Exclusively-Obtained WHO Letter

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Daily Caller Exclusively-Obtained WHO Letter

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    20K views4 pages

    2024-05-08 WHO Letter Final

    Uploaded by

    lillian
    Daily Caller Exclusively-Obtained WHO Letter

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 4

    May 8, 2024

    President Joseph R. Biden Jr.


    The White House
    1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
    Washington, D.C. 20500

    Re World Health Organization’s International Health Regulations (IHR)


    and new Pandemic Treaty.

    Dear Mr. President:

    As the chief legal officers of our States, we oppose two instruments under ne-
    gotiation that could give the World Health Organization (WHO) unprecedented and
    unconstitutional powers over the United States and her people. Justice Neil Gorsuch
    remarked that the COVID-19 pandemic may have been “the greatest intrusions on
    civil liberties in the peacetime history of this country.” 1 Meanwhile, the WHO failed
    to hold the Chinese Communist Party accountable for its lies and deceptions during
    the pandemic. 2 Rather than learning from these failures, some inexplicably want to
    relinquish more power to unelected and unaccountable institutions.

    These proposed accords could radically transform the WHO’s existing Interna-
    tional Health Regulations (IHRs) and institute a new “Pandemic Agreement”
    (Treaty). 3 The current draft of the Pandemic Agreement purportedly serves as “ne-
    gotiating text” for international consideration. Although the latest iteration is far
    better than prior versions, it’s still highly problematic. The fluid and opaque nature
    of these proceedings, moreover, could allow the most egregious provisions from past
    versions to return. Meanwhile, the IHR amendment process has largely occurred
    behind closed doors as the working group considers hundreds of proposals. To vary-
    ing degrees, these measures would threaten national sovereignty, undermine states’
    authority, and imperil constitutionally guaranteed freedoms. Ultimately, the goal of
    these instruments isn’t to protect public health. It’s to cede authority to the WHO—

    1 Arizona v. Mayorkas, 143 S. Ct. 1312, 1314 (2023) (Gorsuch, J., concurring).
    2 See The Origins of the Global Pandemic, Including the Roles of the CCP & WHO, Committee on
    Foreign Affairs, U.S. House of Representatives (Sept. 2020),
    3 Revised draft of the negotiating text of the WHO Pandemic Agreement, World Health Organization

    (March 2024), https://apps.who.int/gb/inb/pdf_files/inb9/A_inb9_3-en.pdf.

    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
    215 North Sanders (406) 444-2026
    PO Box 201401 [email protected]
    Helena, MT 59620-1401 mtdoj.gov
    President Joe Biden
    Page 2
    May 8, 2024

    specifically its Director-General—to restrict our citizens’ rights to freedom of speech,


    privacy, movement (especially travel across borders) and informed consent.

    We therefore oppose such accords for several important reasons. First, the two
    proposed instruments would transform the WHO from an advisory, charitable organ-
    ization into the world’s governor of public health. The WHO currently lacks author-
    ity to enforce its recommendations. Under proposed IHR amendments and the Pan-
    demic Treaty, however, the WHO’s Director-General would achieve the power to uni-
    laterally declare a “public health emergency of international concern” (PHEIC) in one
    or more member nations. Such declarations can include perceived or potential emer-
    gencies other than pandemics, including climate change, immigration, gun violence,
    or even “emergencies” involving plants, animals, or ecosystems. The more egregious
    versions of the proposals would authorize the Director-General to dictate what must
    be done in response to a declared PHEIC. In other words, America’s elected repre-
    sentatives would no longer set the nation’s public health policies. Even watered
    down, these proposals would inappropriately cede American sovereignty to the WHO.

    Second, the federal government cannot delegate public health decisions to an


    international body. The U.S. Constitution doesn’t vest responsibility for public health
    policy with the federal government. It reserves those powers for the States. Even if
    the federal government had such power, Article II, Section 2 requires approval by the
    United States Senate.

    Third, the proposed IHR amendments and the Pandemic Treaty would lay the
    groundwork for a global surveillance infrastructure, ostensibly in the interest of pub-
    lic health, but with the inherent opportunity for control (as with Communist China’s
    “social credit system”). The current draft instructs signatories to “cooperate, in ac-
    cordance with national law, in preventing misinformation and disinformation.” This
    is particularly dangerous given that your administration pressured and encouraged
    social-media companies to suppress free speech during COVID-19.4

    The COVID-19 pandemic exposed fundamental flaws with the WHO and other
    public health institutions. These entities breached public trust and are unquestion-
    ably in need of reform. The proposed measures, however, would only exacerbate the
    WHO’s underlying problems and enable more civil liberties violations during future
    “emergencies.” Accordingly, we will resist any attempt to enable the WHO to directly
    or indirectly set public policy for our citizens.

    4 See Missouri v. Biden, No. 3:22-CV-01213, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 114585 (W.D. La. July 4, 2023).
    President Joe Biden
    Page 3
    May 8, 2024

    Respectfully,

    Austin Knudsen
    Attorney General of Montana

    Steve Marshall Tim Griffin


    Attorney General of Alabama Attorney General of Arkansas

    Ashley Moody Christopher M. Carr


    Attorney General of Florida Attorney General of Georgia

    Raúl Labrador Todd Rokita


    Attorney General of Idaho Attorney General of Indiana

    Brenna Bird Kris Kobach


    Attorney General of Iowa Attorney General of Kansas

    Russell Coleman Liz Murrill


    Attorney General of Kentucky Attorney General of Louisiana
    President Joe Biden
    Page 4
    May 8, 2024

    Lynn Fitch Andrew Bailey


    Attorney General of Mississippi Attorney General to Missouri

    Mike Hilgers Dave Yost


    Attorney General of Nebraska Attorney General of Ohio

    Gentner Drummond Alan Wilson


    Attorney General of Oklahoma Attorney General of South Carolina

    Jonathan Skrmetti Ken Paxton


    Attorney General of Tennessee Attorney General of Texas

    Sean Reyes Jason Miyares


    Attorney General of Utah Attorney General of Virginia

    Patrick Morrisey
    Attorney General of West Virginia

    You might also like