In a historic move, the World Health Organization (WHO) adopted a global pandemic agreement on May 20, 2025, aimed at preventing the chaos and inequity seen during the COVID-19 crisis. After three years of intense negotiations, the legally binding pact was approved with applause at the World Health Assembly in Geneva. But with the United States, the WHO’s biggest financial supporter, opting out, questions linger about whether this agreement can truly protect the world from future pandemics.
The agreement is a response to the uneven global response to COVID-19, where wealthier nations secured vaccines and treatments while poorer countries were left struggling. The pact sets out to ensure that vaccines, medicines, and diagnostic tests are shared fairly when the next pandemic hits. It requires participating pharmaceutical companies to allocate 20% of their production to the WHO, prioritizing distribution to developing nations based on need. WHO Director-General Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus called it a “victory for public health, science, and multilateral action,” emphasizing its potential to make the world safer.
However, the U.S. absence casts a shadow over the agreement’s effectiveness. When President Donald Trump took office in January 2025, he began a year-long process to withdraw the U.S. from the WHO, pulling its negotiators from the talks. The U.S., which invested billions in vaccine development during COVID-19, won’t be bound by the pact. U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. criticized the agreement, claiming it “locks in” the WHO’s past failures and doubles down on dysfunction. “We’re not going to participate in that,” he stated in a video address to the Assembly.
The agreement faced a late challenge when Slovakia, led by a vaccine-skeptic prime minister, called for a vote. Despite this, 124 countries voted in favor, with no opposition and 11 abstentions, including Poland, Israel, and Russia. Health experts like Michelle Childs from the Drugs for Neglected Diseases initiative praised the treaty for its focus on equity, particularly in research and development. But others, like Gian Luca Burci from the Geneva Graduate Institute, called it an “empty shell” without stronger commitments or enforcement mechanisms. Helen Clark, co-chair of The Independent Panel for Pandemic Preparedness, sees it as a foundation but warns that gaps in funding and access to medical resources remain.
The pact won’t take effect until an annex on sharing pathogen information is finalized, with negotiations starting in July 2025. This could take up to two years to complete. Meanwhile, the agreement sets up a Coordinating Financial Mechanism and a Global Supply Chain and Logistics Network to ensure equitable access to health products during pandemics. It also aligns with updates to the International Health Regulations, adopted last year to improve outbreak detection and response.
For students like you, this agreement highlights the tension between global cooperation and national priorities. It’s a step toward fairness in global health but faces hurdles without the U.S. and without strict enforcement. The COVID-19 pandemic showed how interconnected our world is—viruses don’t respect borders. Yet, as countries navigate sovereignty and self-interest, the question remains: can the world unite effectively for the next health crisis?