"The WHO Pandemic Treaty: A Power Play or a Necessary Step?"

The House of Representatives has passed a bill that seeks to prohibit the United States from accepting a World Health Organization (WHO) pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response agreement unless it is ratified by a two-thirds majority vote in the Senate. The bill, titled the "No WHO Pandemic Preparedness Treaty Without Senate Approval Act," has raised eyebrows due to its unusual language, which declares that any agreement reached on pandemic preparedness and response by the World Health Assembly will be deemed a treaty subject to Senate ratification. But what's behind this sudden urgency? The bill's sponsors claim that it's because of the lingering public distrust of the WHO, fueled by its alleged manipulation by the Chinese Communist Party and its role in the COVID-19 pandemic. As the Foreign Affairs Committee's report puts it, "it is beyond doubt that the [Chinese Communist Party] actively engaged in a cover-up designed to obfuscate data, hide relevant health information, and suppress doctors and journalists who attempted to warn the world of the COVID-19 outbreak."

However, critics argue that the bill is an overreach, as it bypasses the president's role in treaty-making and ignores the constitutional requirement for Senate ratification. As the 2022 edition of The Constitution Annotated makes clear, the treaty-making power begins with executive negotiations with other nations, and the president's decision to submit a treaty for Senate approval is discretionary. So, is this a power play or a necessary step? What if the WHO is indeed trying to manipulate the pandemic response, and this bill is an attempt to rein in its powers? Or what if this is just a partisan move to score political points against China? As the negotiations continue, it's essential to consider all sides of the issue and ask ourselves: What if this assumption is wrong? What might the author have missed?

"The WHO Pandemic Treaty: A Power Play or a Necessary Step? "

Actions