Bill · S. 92· Senate(119-S-92)
Defending American Sovereignty in Global Pandemics Act
- Introduced
- 1/14/2025
- Last activity
- 1/14/2025 — Read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations. (text: CR S140)
- Sponsored by
- John Barrasso
- Cosponsors
- - 15 - 0
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
This bill is called the Defending American Sovereignty in Global Pandemics Act. It states that the United States cannot join any World Health Organization pandemic convention, agreement, or instrument unless it is done as a treaty approved by the Senate. It also restricts the U.S. Government from spending any funds for the World Health Organization starting on the effective date of such an agreement until the Senate approves a resolution of ratification. In plain English, our elected officials in the Senate would have to sign off on any WHO pandemic deal before we officially agree to it or fund it.
Yes
Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see?+3
By requiring Senate treaty approval and open ratification processes, it enhances congressional oversight and transparency over international health commitments.
Does this reduce what the federal government spends?+2
The bill can potentially suspend federal funding to the WHO under certain conditions, leading to a minor reduction in specific international expenditures.
Does this make the government pay for what it commits to?+1
It imposes conditions and accountability on federal spending regarding international health agreements.
The opposite
Does this make the country readier for the next outbreak?-3
Cutting off funds and restricting international agreements with the WHO could disrupt collaborative emergency responses and global pandemic coordination.
Does this strengthen ties with allied countries?-2
Suspending WHO funding and placing unilateral treaty hurdles on global health agreements may strain international cooperation and relations.
Does this give the federal government more power?-2
It imposes stricter legislative constraints and oversight requirements on the executive branch regarding international agreements.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Section 2(a) requires that the United States can only become a party to a WHO pandemic agreement if it goes through the proper Senate treaty approval process. This is a positive because it gives our elected representatives in the Senate a direct say in checking major international health deals.
-
Section 2(b) stops the U.S. government from spending money on the World Health Organization if a pandemic agreement is in effect without Senate approval, lasting until the Senate officially ratifies it. This is a positive because it holds the WHO and our spending accountable to the Senate before American tax dollars keep flowing under those specific conditions.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- Section 2(b) cuts off all U.S. funding and spending for the World Health Organization starting from the effective date of a pandemic agreement until the Senate approves a resolution of ratification. This could be considered a negative if holding back funds during this timeframe disrupts important international health cooperation or emergency responses when people might need them most.
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Economy And Finance
- Reduces Government Spending+2Improves Fiscal Responsibility+1
- Healthcare
- Improves Pandemic Preparedness-3
- National Security And Foreign Policy
- Improves International Alliances-2
- Governance And Ideology
- Improves Government Transparency+3Increases Federal Power-2
- 1/16/2025
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 1/14/2025
- Read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations. (text: CR S140)
- 14 Cosponsors added.
- Introduced in Senate
Marsha BlackburnRepublican · Tennessee
Mike CrapoRepublican · Idaho
Kevin CramerRepublican · North Dakota
Ted CruzRepublican · Texas
Steve DainesRepublican · Montana
Deb FischerRepublican · Nebraska
John HoevenRepublican · North Dakota
Josh HawleyRepublican · Missouri
Cynthia LummisRepublican · Wyoming
Roger MarshallRepublican · Kansas
Rand PaulRepublican · Kentucky
James RischRepublican · Idaho
Pete RickettsRepublican · Nebraska
Rick ScottRepublican · Florida
Roger WickerRepublican · Mississippi