The "WHO is Accountable Act" prohibits federal funds from being used to rejoin or contribute to the World Health Organization (WHO) until the Secretary of State certifies that the WHO has met specific reform criteria, ensuring it is not influenced by the Chinese Communist Party, is transparent, and focuses on its core mission.
Jodey Arrington
Representative
TX-19
The WHO is Accountable Act prohibits federal funds from being used to rejoin or contribute to the World Health Organization (WHO) until the Secretary of State certifies that the WHO has met specific reform criteria. These criteria include ensuring the WHO is not influenced by the Chinese Communist Party, has increased transparency, and is not involved in politically charged issues. The Act also requires the WHO to grant observer status to Taiwan and ensure that no WHO directive is legally binding on U.S. citizens as a condition of U.S. membership.
The "WHO is Accountable Act" effectively blocks any U.S. re-entry into, or funding for, the World Health Organization (WHO) until a long list of conditions are met. This isn't just about cutting a check – the bill, introduced as H.R."[Not included in provided bill text]", demands the Secretary of State certify that the WHO has undergone significant reforms before any taxpayer dollars can flow. These range from ensuring aid isn't politicized to limiting the influence of the Chinese Communist Party. (SEC. 2)
The core of this bill is a set of demands placed on the WHO. Before the U.S. can rejoin or contribute financially, the WHO must demonstrate:
Beyond these points, the bill gets into more contested territory. It requires the WHO to cease all "funding, involvement, and messaging" on what it terms "controversial, politically charged issues unrelated to its directive." This specifically includes gender identity, climate change, and abortion. (SEC. 2) The bill also demands the WHO to agree that no WHO directive is legally binding on any U.S. citizen or state as a condition of U.S. membership.(SEC. 2)
Consider a global health crisis. If the WHO is actively coordinating a response, but the U.S. hasn't certified these conditions, American resources and expertise could be sidelined. Or imagine a U.S. researcher who needs WHO data on infectious diseases – access might be restricted if the U.S. isn't a participating member. The requirement of a certification by the Secretary of State also means the decision to rejoin or fund the WHO becomes inherently political, subject to the priorities of the current administration.
This bill raises a fundamental question: How do we balance national sovereignty with the need for international cooperation on global health? While the bill's proponents might argue it's about accountability and protecting U.S. interests, critics could point out that these conditions—especially the ones related to "controversial issues"—could be used to impose a specific political agenda on a global health body. The requirement that WHO pronouncements have no force in American law raises questions about the value of membership. It's a bit like joining a club, but refusing to follow the rules.