S.92 - Defending American Sovereignty in Global Pandemics Act (119th Congress)
Summary
S.92, the "Defending American Sovereignty in Global Pandemics Act," aims to ensure Senate approval for any obligations the United States assumes under a World Health Organization (WHO) pandemic agreement. It also seeks to suspend U.S. funding for the WHO until such an agreement is ratified by the Senate. The bill was introduced in the Senate on January 14, 2025, and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
The core provision of the bill prohibits the U.S. from becoming a party to any international instrument under the WHO related to pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response without Senate ratification as a treaty. Furthermore, it restricts the U.S. government from obligating or expending funds for the WHO if an agreement is reached but not yet ratified by the Senate.
In essence, the bill asserts congressional control over international agreements related to pandemics and aims to ensure that the Senate plays a crucial role in shaping U.S. commitments to global health initiatives.
Expected Effects
The bill's enactment would change the process by which the US enters into agreements with the WHO regarding pandemics. It would require Senate approval via treaty ratification, a higher bar than executive agreements.
Funding for the WHO would be suspended during any period where an agreement exists but has not been ratified. This could impact the WHO's operations and programs, as well as the US's influence within the organization.
It could also lead to delays in implementing international health policies and agreements, as the Senate ratification process can be lengthy and uncertain.
Potential Benefits
- Preservation of Sovereignty: Ensures that the U.S. retains control over its policies related to global pandemics.
- Increased Congressional Oversight: Enhances the role of the Senate in international agreements, promoting checks and balances.
- Protection Against Unvetted Obligations: Prevents the U.S. from being bound by agreements that have not been thoroughly reviewed and approved by elected representatives.
- Potential for More Favorable Agreements: Senate involvement could lead to the negotiation of agreements more aligned with U.S. interests.
- Increased Transparency: The treaty ratification process is generally more transparent than executive agreements.
Potential Disadvantages
- Hindrance to Global Health Efforts: Could delay or prevent the U.S. from participating in crucial international efforts to address pandemics.
- Reduced U.S. Influence in WHO: Suspension of funding could weaken the U.S.'s ability to shape WHO policies and initiatives.
- Potential for Political Gridlock: Senate ratification can be a lengthy and contentious process, leading to delays and uncertainty.
- Damage to International Relations: Unilateral actions could strain relationships with other countries and international organizations.
- Increased Bureaucracy: The requirement for Senate approval adds another layer of bureaucracy to international health agreements.
Most Disadvantaged Areas:
Constitutional Alignment
The bill aligns with Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution, which grants the President the power to make treaties "by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur." By requiring Senate ratification for WHO pandemic agreements, the bill reinforces this constitutional principle.
However, the bill could be viewed as potentially infringing upon the President's authority to conduct foreign policy and enter into international agreements. The extent of this infringement would depend on the specific nature of the WHO agreements and the degree to which they impact U.S. sovereignty.
Overall, the bill attempts to balance the President's foreign policy powers with the Senate's treaty-making authority, reflecting a broader debate about the separation of powers in the context of international relations.
Impact Assessment: Things You Care About ⓘ
This action has been evaluated across 19 key areas that matter to you. Scores range from 1 (highly disadvantageous) to 5 (highly beneficial).