Release | Stop The “Global Governance” Bait-And-Switch: W.H.O. Must Not Get Away With Subterfuge On Sovereignty


For Immediate Release
May 29, 2024

Matthew Franklin, [email protected]


Growing Opposition as the World Learns About the Globalists’ Power-Grab

WASHINGTON, D.C.—The World Health Organization’s World Health Assembly (WHA) reportedly has failed to achieve its goal of adopting a Pandemic Response treaty aimed at granting WHO Director General Tedros Ghebreysus the authority to declare a “public health emergency of international concern” and dictate what must be done in response. Unfortunately, that is not true.

As a press release issued last night by the WHO makes clear, “Dr. Tedros” meant it when he declared in recent days that he “will try everything” and that “where there’s a will, there’s a way.” The way he’s trying turns out to be a devious bait-and-switch. Unsurprisingly for a Marxist selected for his job by the Chinese Communist Party, Tedros’ Plan B is to use what amounts to another treaty – one amending the organization’s existing International Health Regulations – to secure approval of the essential and ominous elements of the Pandemic accord while keeping negotiations on the latter treaty going with the adoption of a resolution to agree to agree to it in the future.

What makes this gambit aimed at advancing “global governance” under the health dictatorship of Tedros Ghebreyesus particularly insidious is that he has been known to effect such changes to the IHRs without a vote, citing “a consensus” favoring that action. In some cases, there was not even a formal opportunity to establish whether such a consensus actually existed, and in at least one instance, it was declared when there actually was expressed dissent.

Even more concerning is the prospect that Plan B would involve a violation of the very International Health Regulations that are being amended. The IHR’s Article 55.2 makes clear that amendments to those regulations are not in order for approval at a World Health Assembly meeting unless they have been available for review at least four months in advance. As things stand now, Tedros will not even allow four days, and perhaps not even four hours, to be afforded before he declares them approved.

Fortunately, a growing and increasingly formidable opposition is emerging to such a stealthy effort to install a global health dictator with the connivance of the Biden administration, the CCP, the World Economic Forum, the United Nations, the European Union, Bill Gates and Big Pharma. Evidence of such opposition includes:

  • A May 22nd letter to President Biden from twenty-four Republican governors strongly opposing the WHO’s amendments to its International Health Regulations and the Pandemic agreement. The governors warned, in part:

We, as governors of our respective states, stand united in opposition to two proposed instruments currently under negotiation that would purport to grant the World Health Organization (WHO) unprecedented and unconstitutional powers over the United States and its people. These proposed changes could drastically change the role of governors in response to their charge as the state health officials.

These proposed accords aim to significantly alter the amendments to the WHO’s existing International Health Regulations (IHRs) and introduce a new “Pandemic Agreement” (Treaty) that would undermine national sovereignty, infringe upon states’ rights, and jeopardize constitutionally guaranteed freedoms.

The objective of these instruments is to empower the WHO, particularly its uncontrollable Director-General, with the authority to restrict the rights of U.S. citizens, including freedoms such as speech, privacy, travel, choice of medical care, and informed consent, thus violating our Constitution’s core principles.


As governors, we affirm that public health policy is a matter reserved for the states, not the federal government, and certainly not international bodies like the WHO. We are committed to resisting any attempts to transfer authority to the WHO over public policy affecting our citizens or any efforts by the WHO to assert such authority over them. (Emphasis added.)

The governors’ letter to President Biden followed a similar one previously sent on May1st to him by all forty-nine GOP members of the U.S. Senate. The senators wrote in part:

Article 55 of the IHR requires the text of any IHR amendment to be communicated to member states at least four months before the WHA at which they are to be considered. As the WHO has still not provided final amendment text to member states, we submit that IHR amendments may not be considered at next month’s WHA. Some of the over 300 proposals for amendments made by member states would substantially increase the WHO’s health emergency powers and constitute intolerable infringements upon U.S. sovereignty. As such, it was essential that the WHO abide by the four-month notice period to allow member states time to ensure that no traces of such proposals were included in a final amendment package for consideration by the WHA. Having failed to do so, amendments are not in order.


We strongly urge you not to join any pandemic related treaty, convention, or agreement being considered at the Seventy-seventh WHA. Should you ignore this advice, we state in the strongest possible terms that we consider any such agreement to be a treaty requiring the concurrence of two-thirds of the Senate under Article Il Section 2 of the Constitution. (Emphasis added.)

Another letter to President Biden was sent twenty-two states attorneys general. The AGs wrote in part:

…The IHR amendment process has largely occurred behind closed doors as the working group considers hundreds of proposals. To varying 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 – 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.

…The two proposed instruments would transform the WHO from an advisory, charitable organization into the world’s governor of public health. The WHO currently lacks authority to enforce its recommendations. Under proposed IHR amendments and the Pandemic Treaty, however, the WHO’s Director-General would achieve the power to unilaterally declare a “public health emergency of international concern” (PHEIC) in one or more member nations. Such declarations can include perceived or potential emergencies 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 representatives would no longer set the nation’s public health policies. Even watered down, these proposals would inappropriately cede American sovereignty to the WHO.


…The proposed IHR amendments and the Pandemic Treaty would lay the groundwork for a global surveillance infrastructure, ostensibly in the interest of public health, but with the inherent opportunity for control (as with Communist China’s “social credit system”). The current draft instructs signatories to “cooperate, in accordance 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. The COVID-19 pandemic exposed fundamental flaws with the WHO and other public health institutions. These entities breached public trust and are unquestionably 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. (Emphasis added.)

  • A Sovereignty Summit convened on May 25th by the Sovereignty Coalition with Ron Johnson’s indispensable help and participation and that of Reps. Ralph Norman, Bob Good, Chris Smith and Speaker Mike Johnson’s National Security Advisor, Josh Hodges, who conveyed the Speaker’s support for the Coalition’s efforts to oppose the WHO treaties. Among the other participants were: former Congresswoman Michele Bachmann and twenty-five legislators from around the world.
  • The release of a powerful short video about Director General, Tedros. Trevor Loudon’s “Exposing WHO Chief Dr. Tedros: Militant Marxist and China Stooge,” documents: Tedros’ record of longstanding involvement with a designated terrorist organization in Ethiopia; his status as a controlled asset of the Chinese Communist Party; and his criminally bad advice in his present role, which resulted in the needless death of millions in this country and around the world who followed his prescriptions for responding to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Far from being entrusted with an unprecedented concentration of power to control the world’s populations of humans and even plants and animals, Tedros must be held accountable for his previous malfeasance.

  • The following remarks by former President Donald Trump:

“I will protect American Sovereignty from the hands of global government. As we speak, Joe Biden’s minions are in Geneva secretly negotiating to surrender more of our liberty to the World Health Organization.

“Drafts of the agreements show they want to subjugate America and attack free speech, and empower the World Health Organization to redistribute American resources. They’re going to take our money and send it all over the world to other countries that we need for our own citizens in the event of a pandemic. It couId happen again.

I am hereby demanding that Joe Biden submit these monstrosities to the Senate as Treaties. They have to be submitted as treaties because he cannot be allowed to do that, destroy our country. If he does not, I will rip them up and throw them out on Day One of the Trump administration. (Emphasis added.)

  • An eight-hour long “Freedom Prayer” X Spaces event over the night of May 26-27. Held in the immediate run-up to the WHA meeting, this extraordinary session was hosted by the Sovereignty Coalition in collaboration with Bill Ellmore and Kat Lindley, a leading member of the Coalition. It featured powerful prayers and remarks by dozens of U.S. and international faith leaders, intercessors and fellow prayer warriors, constitutional and other subject matter experts seeking divine intervention to prevent the WHO from succeeding with its stealthy coup.
  • A powerful letter opposing the WHO’s efforts to secure approval of the IHR amendments in violation of its own rules – i.e., without affording “at least four months” for review before they are eligible for approval. It was sponsored by Chris Smith, the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee’s Global Health, Global Human Rights and International Organizations, signed by over 200 parliamentarians and hand-delivered to Dr. Tedros during the WHA meetings. (This letter is still open for signature at It reads in part:

Article 55(2) of the IHR mandates that the text of any proposed amendment be communicated at least four months before the Health Assembly where it will be considered. Claiming that the dissemination of an initial draft in February 2023 meets this requirement, despite ongoing negotiations, is absurd. Equally unreasonable is the assertion that this requirement applies only to the Director General and Member States, not the working group they appointed, when the Article makes no such distinction. Both arguments show a blatant disregard for both the spirit and the letter of the law

The World Health Assembly (WHA) Rules of Procedure numbers 8, 10, 11, & 15 also prohibit rushing agreements without due diligence. Additionally, Rule 14’s requirement for full disclosure of all obligations, including financial obligations, has been grossly violated, with crucial details deferred until some future time. This essentially forces the Member States to sign a blank check.

Moreover, the hasty adoption of multiple instruments with overlapping technical, administrative, and financial requirements will inevitably lead to confusion and could seriously undermine global health efforts going forward. This underscores the critical need to adhere to the four-month minimum requirement.

Besides the concerns about timing and notification, the legitimacy of any agreement fundamentally relies on its adherence to the following fundamental principles of the rule of law:

  1. Valid Voting Process: An authentic roll-call vote with a two-thirds majority present must be documented and available for verification. Without this proof any “agreement” is null and void.
  2. Clear and Final Wording: The terms of any agreement must be explicitly defined within the document itself. It is unacceptable to use open-ended wording that defers crucial decisions to unaccountable committees.
  3. Member-Led Negotiations: The bureau’s role should be solely to facilitate discussions, not dictate outcomes. Negotiations must be transparent and inclusive, accommodating the capacities of all delegations, especially those from smaller countries. Ad-hoc, concurrent negotiations without proper notice or translation violate the principles of international law.


Using potential pandemics as a pretext to violate the principles of good governance erodes trust and undermines international cooperation when it is most needed.

Proceeding with the adoption of new amendments to the IHR or the proposed pandemic treaty at the upcoming 77th World Health Assembly would be contrary to law. Should you proceed, any resulting agreement will immediately be null and void. Conversely, following these basic principles of good governance will demonstrate the WHO’s commitment to global health and the rule of law. (Emphasis added.)

  • Over the past year, the Sovereignty Coalition has sponsored various opportunities for American citizens to voice their opposition. Over 63,000 Americans have taken nearly one million actions via the Align Act platform to communicate their frustrations and concerns to elected officials at the federal and state level. And, 36,000 have signed onto The American Sovereignty Declaration.

In short, there is growing opposition to what Tedros and his partisans are doing. More and more citizens and their elected representatives all over the globe are discovering what is afoot. If the process whereby they are to be enslaved were open and transparent, they would reject it overwhelmingly. Hence the subterfuge, the deception, the bait-and-switch, the Plan B designed to steal their sovereignty and freedoms without their permission, and in most cases without their knowledge.

The developments outlined above strongly suggest that what the WHO is doing will ultimately be repudiated and those responsible will be sanctioned. The question is: How much damage will be done in the meantime to the American people, our constitutional form of government and our God-given, unalienable rights – and the lives and fortunes of billions of others worldwide?

In order to minimize – if not prevent outright – such damage, the Sovereignty Coalition joins the senators, governors, attorneys general, parliamentarians and patriots who are demanding that the approval of any IHR amendments or other WHO treaty be deferred to ensure that they are: a) subjected to proper scrutiny and debate before they are deemed to be eligible for approval; and b) only to be allowed to bind the American people if subjected to the U.S. Senate’s advice and consent, requiring a two-thirds majority. Join us at and on Substack.

Reggie Littlejohn, Co-Founder of the Sovereignty Coalition and President of Anti-Globalist International, who is among those representing the Coalition in Geneva stated:

“The intent of Article 55 is to give national governments and civil society time to review the proposed changes and analyze their impact.  The fact that the World Health Organization is willing to violate its own laws and regulations so flagrantly indicates their disdain for the rule of law.  If the World Health Assembly is willing to toss even its procedural safeguards out the window, why should we expect them to honor the laws of our nation?

“In addition, we have no idea what they are planning to add to the IHR amendments, as the World Health Assembly is negotiating them this week in a black-box. For example, will the WHO try to inject problematic provisions of the Pandemic Treaty into the IHR one – exacerbating the damage the latter will do to our national sovereignty and personal medical freedom? Will the negotiators thus try to approve them by ‘consent’ in Geneva and finesse the U.S. Senate, rather than have them put to the rigorous and necessary 2/3 majority vote our Constitution requires? We must, with God’s grace, do everything we can to prevent such a truly diabolical travesty.”


To interview representatives of the Sovereignty Coalition, contact Matthew Franklin at [email protected]