U.S. and Argentina break away from WHO to create a new global health authority that promises scientific integrity over political agenda, with HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Argentina’s Health Minister Mario Lugones at the helm.
Key Takeaways
- The United States and Argentina have officially withdrawn from the World Health Organization (WHO), citing its mishandling of the COVID-19 pandemic and political bias.
- HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Argentine Health Minister Mario Lugones are establishing a new global health authority focused on transparency and evidence-based strategies.
- The new initiative aims to create a health cooperation model grounded in scientific integrity, national sovereignty, and accountability.
- Both nations criticized the WHO for prioritizing political interests over science and being unduly influenced by China and pharmaceutical companies.
- President Trump’s administration ordered the U.S. exit from WHO during his second term, fulfilling a campaign promise to redirect American resources.
A New Direction for Global Health Leadership
In a significant shift in international health policy, the United States and Argentina have launched an initiative to establish a new global health authority. This joint venture comes after both nations formally withdrew from the World Health Organization (WHO), criticizing the organization’s handling of the COVID-19 pandemic and what they describe as its politically-driven approach to global health issues. The move represents a decisive break from conventional international health governance structures that have been in place for decades.
During a high-profile meeting in Buenos Aires, U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Argentine Health Minister Mario Lugones outlined their vision for a new health authority focused on scientific integrity rather than political agendas. The collaboration stems from shared concerns about the WHO’s effectiveness and independence during recent global health crises, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic when critical decisions appeared to be influenced by political rather than scientific considerations.
“The WHO’s prescriptions do not work because they are not based on science but on political interests and bureaucratic structures that refuse to review their own mistakes,” According to Argentina’s government
Critiques of WHO’s Performance and Influence
Both U.S. and Argentine officials pointed to what they called “structural and operational shortcomings” in the WHO that undermined global trust during the pandemic. Kennedy, who has long been critical of pharmaceutical industry influence on public health policy, asserted that the WHO has fallen under the sway of China, gender ideology advocates, and powerful pharmaceutical companies. These influences, according to Kennedy, have compromised the organization’s ability to provide unbiased guidance during health emergencies.
Argentina’s President Javier Milei has been equally critical, having announced his country’s departure from the WHO in February. The Argentine government has accused the organization of poor management during the COVID-19 pandemic and failing to provide effective leadership when it was most needed. This dissatisfaction with the WHO’s performance has fueled the determination to create an alternative structure that better reflects the values of transparency and scientific rigor.
“structural and operational shortcomings that undermined global trust and highlighted the urgent need for independent, science-based leadership in global health,” Stated Kennedy and Lugones
Vision for the New Health Authority
The proposed health authority aims to uphold scientific integrity and independence in handling international health emergencies. According to the joint statement by Kennedy and Lugones, the withdrawal from WHO “marks the beginning of a new path – toward building a modern global health cooperation model grounded in scientific integrity, transparency, sovereignty, and accountability.” This approach represents a fundamental shift away from centralized global health governance toward a model that respects national sovereignty while fostering international cooperation.
Minister Lugones emphasized the alignment between U.S. and Argentine perspectives on global health, stating, “Together with Robert Kennedy, we believe in the future of collaboration in global health. We have similar visions about the path forward.” The collaborative effort will focus on creating mechanisms for transparent information sharing, unbiased scientific research, and evidence-based response strategies for future health crises. Unlike the WHO, this new authority will prioritize individual nations’ right to determine their own health policies.
“Together with Robert Kennedy, we believe in the future of collaboration in global health. We have similar visions about the path forward,” Stated Mario Lugones
Implementation and International Response
As part of the initiative, Argentina has announced plans for a “structural review” of its national health agencies to improve organization and transparency. This internal reorganization is intended to align with the principles of the new international health authority and create compatible systems for information sharing and collaborative research. The United States is expected to undertake similar reviews of its health infrastructure to ensure compatibility with the new global framework being developed.
The Trump administration, which had previously considered remaining in the WHO if certain reforms were implemented, ultimately decided on a complete withdrawal after determining that the organization was unlikely to adopt meaningful changes. President Trump’s decision to exit the WHO fulfills a campaign promise and redirects American resources toward initiatives that better serve U.S. interests while still addressing global health challenges. Kennedy and Lugones are now actively encouraging other nations to join their initiative.
While the timeline for fully establishing this new health authority remains flexible, both countries have committed significant resources to ensure its successful development. This bold restructuring of global health governance represents one of the most significant challenges to established international institutions in recent years and signals a growing dissatisfaction with multilateral organizations that fail to deliver on their core missions while imposing burdensome requirements on member nations.
