U.S. and Argentina: New global health alliance emerges from WHO rejection
By willowt // 2025-05-30
Copy
 
  • U.S. and Argentina withdraw from WHO to create alternative health system prioritizing transparency and sovereignty.
  • Joint declaration cites WHO failure during pandemic, China influence and corporate-political corruption as key reasons.
  • New alliance emphasizes gold-standard science, national autonomy and rejecting “totalitarian impulses” in global health governance.
  • U.S. Secretary Kennedy and Argentine Minister Lugones tout the plan as model for countries seeking to escape opaque multilateral bureaucracy.
  • Critics say this move could fracture global health cooperation; supporters see a rebirth of patient-focused systems rejecting power imbalances.
In a symbolic blow to the World Health Organization’s (WHO) decades-long dominance, the United States and Argentina announced plans Wednesday to create an alternative international health system following their formal withdrawal from the United Nations-backed group. The collaboration, unveiled by U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Argentine Health Minister Mario Lugones in Buenos Aires, seeks to establish a framework grounded in scientific integrity, national sovereignty and transparency. The move underscores deepening skepticism toward multilateral institutions perceived as coddling authoritarian regimes and corporate interests. Why? Both nations accuse WHO of being hijacked by politicized agendas, citing the organization’s mishandling of the pandemic, undue influence by China and corruption. In a rebuttal to critics who warned of a collapse in global health coordination, Kennedy and Lugones framed the split as a chance to rebuild systems that prioritize individual nations’ rights and scientific rigor.

Pandemic fallout exposed WHO’s flaws, sparked U.S.-Argentina alliance

The U.S. decision to withdraw, formalized in January 2021 under President Donald Trump’s first term, followed years of congressional hearings into the WHO’s ties to China and its delayed response to early warnings of the novel coronavirus. Kennedy scathingly critiqued the WHO’s January 2020 suppression of human-to-human transmission reports and its “fiction” that the virus originated from bats, despite mounting evidence of a potential lab leak in Wuhan. Argentina, which announced its withdrawal in February, echoed concerns. “WHO’s prescriptions do not work because they are not based on science but on political interests and bureaucratic structures,” its government declared. Buenos Aires has called the WHO’s pandemic-era “caveman quarantine” mandates counterproductive, tying its withdrawal to broader vows to promote “economic freedom and scientific autonomy.” Kennedy framed the new alliance as a response to these failures. During a keynote address at the recent World Health Assembly in Geneva, he thundered, “The WHO has become mired in bureaucratic bloat, entrenched paradigms and conflicts of interest… its priorities increasingly reflect global corporate medicine, not public health.”

Building a “sovereignty-first” model

The U.S.-Argentina partnership aims to establish a leaner, more accountable framework. A joint declaration outlined goals including pandemic preparedness, sharing health data while respecting privacy norms and harmonizing drug approvals without corporate bias. Crucially, both nations emphasize that the new system will not impose mandates on member states but rather serve as a platform for sovereign nations to collaborate on evidence-based policies. “What differentiates this model is the absence of a central, unaccountable bureaucracy,” Lugones stated. “Instead of dictates from Geneva, we want a coalition where countries share equal authority.” Argentina’s president, Javier Milei, further linked the shift to a rejection of transnationalism. “We’re not walking away from global health challenges,” he said. “We’re walking away from those who want to dress power grabs as compassion.” Historically, the WHO’s depictions as a neo-colonial tool of wealthy nations have helped nurture such critiques. In the 2020s, developing countries often lamented decisions skewed toward donors like China and the U.S. Meanwhile, criticism of vaccines-for-peace agreements and coercive lockdowns amplified perceptions of corruption and paternalism.

Skepticism and strategic implications

Skepticism abounds. Health experts warn that sidelining WHO could fragment vaccine distribution and hinder cooperative disease surveillance. “Small nations without big budgets will struggle if they’re cut off from WHO intellectual resources,” said Dr. Lucía Fernández of the São Paulo School of Medicine. Supporters counter that WHO’s current architecture is irreparable. “If we keep treating the symptoms of bad governance, we’ll stay forever in the clinic,” argued Lugones. The alliance’s timing matters amid U.S.-China tensions. China, WHO’s largest economy by votes, has used its influence to water down reports on Wuhan lab safety. Beijing’s growing investments in African health infrastructure since the U.S. departure signal a geopolitical power struggle within global health.

A new dawn for sovereignty in global health governance

The U.S.-Argentina model could reshape international norms. By coupling sovereignty with science, the alliance positions itself as an alternative to what Kennedy called WHO’s “totalitarian impulses.” While success depends on whether participants can agree on sharedринги, the move reflects a broader backlash against perceived globalist overreach. For now, the alliance remains a silhouette. Countries from Europe to South America are monitoring developments, with some expressing cautious interest. Whether this pivot yields a functioning network—or merely a niche body for sovereignty advocates—will test the strength of the “gold-standard science” promise and the appeal of going it alone. Sources for this article include: TheExpose.com HHS.gov AMgreatness.com
Copy