124 States Said Yes. The US Said No. And Germany Is Paying the Bill. #
In May 2025, 124 WHO member states adopted an international pandemic agreement in Geneva — the most far-reaching health accord since the International Health Regulations of 2005. Eleven states abstained, including Italy, Poland, Israel, Russia, and Iran. No state voted against it [1][2].
Seven months later, in January 2026, the United States under President Trump withdrew from the WHO [3]. Since then, Germany has been the largest state contributor to the organization [4].
What this treaty contains, who benefits from it, and why its centerpiece isn’t even finished — the public hears remarkably little about any of this.
What Was Decided — and What Wasn’t? #
The Treaty (May 2025) #
The core treaty was adopted. It contains framework provisions on:
- Pandemic prevention and preparedness
- Early warning systems and information sharing
- Equitable distribution of vaccines and therapeutics
- Strengthening national health systems
Sounds reasonable. The problem lies in the details [1][5].
The Missing Centerpiece: PABS #
The Pathogen Access and Benefit Sharing System (PABS) — the mechanism governing who gets access to pathogen data and who profits from it — was entirely deferred. Too complex, too contentious. Negotiations were outsourced to a separate working group (IGWG), with a deadline of May 2026, 79th World Health Assembly [6][7].
As of March 2026: 12 negotiating days remain. Positions remain far apart [7].
PABS: What It’s Really About #
The Deal #
The basic idea sounds fair: developing countries share pathogen samples and genetic sequence data. In return, pharmaceutical companies using this data must provide 20% of their pandemic production to the WHO — at least 10% donated, the rest at “affordable prices” [7][8].
The Problem #
For developing countries: A bloc of approximately 100 low-and-middle-income countries (LMICs) demands binding commitments. Zimbabwe put it bluntly: “A PABS system that lacks enforceability becomes a charitable model. Charity is not equity.” [8]
For industrialized nations: Wealthy countries — led by the EU and, until January 2026, the US — want to “protect the pharma innovation ecosystem” and ensure open access to pathogen sequence data. Translation: the pharmaceutical industry should continue to profit without restriction [7][8].
The digital dimension: The real point of contention is DSI — Digital Sequence Information. Whoever has the genetic sequence of a pathogen as a dataset no longer needs the physical virus. This enables the development of vaccines, diagnostics, and therapeutics — without ever receiving a sample from the country of origin [9].
The United States: Withdrawal and Sabotage #
In January 2026, the US officially withdrew from the WHO [3]. But instead of stepping back, they’re playing a more aggressive game:
Bilateral pathogen deals with Africa. Exclusive reporting by Health Policy Watch reveals: the US is signing direct agreements with African nations on pathogen sharing — bypassing the multilateral PABS system entirely [10].
The message is clear: why negotiate through the WHO when you can secure access to pathogen data bilaterally? This undermines the entire negotiating position of developing countries.
Germany: From Contributor to Power Center #
Following the US withdrawal, Germany became the largest state contributor to the WHO [4]. Simultaneously, Karl Lauterbach is being discussed as a candidate for WHO Director-General — succeeding Tedros Ghebreyesus from May 2027 [11][12].
The constellation:
- Germany pays the most money
- A German former minister could lead the organization
- The pandemic treaty will be ratified under German financial stewardship
The Federal Ministry of Health assures: “The pandemic agreement does not infringe on the sovereign rights of member states” [13]. A constitutional complaint against it was dismissed by the Federal Constitutional Court in 2023 [14].
What Does the Treaty Actually Say? #
Article 4: One Health #
The treaty institutionalizes the “One Health” approach — the interconnection of human, animal, and environmental health. It sounds holistic, but it means pandemic policy becomes a cross-cutting issue that potentially affects every regulatory domain — from agriculture to urban planning to trade agreements [1].
Article 12: Supply Chains #
States commit to providing production capacities during pandemics and avoiding export restrictions. Remember? During COVID-19, the EU and the US blocked exports of vaccines and raw materials to Africa and Asia [1][15].
Article 15: Infodemic Management #
The treaty contains provisions for “management of infodemics” — combating “misinformation and disinformation” in the health sector. The definition of what constitutes disinformation is left to the contracting parties [1].
This is the same mechanism by which the lab-leak hypothesis, vaccine side effects, and alternative treatments were systematically labeled as “disinformation” and censored during COVID-19.
Article 20: Financing #
A new financing mechanism will be created. The exact design — who pays how much and who controls it — is part of the ongoing negotiations [1].
The Ratification Gap #
The treaty only enters into force when at least 60 states ratify it nationally [2]. As of March 2026, this process is still ongoing. In Germany, the Bundestag would need to approve it.
But: the IHR amendments (International Health Regulations), adopted in parallel, take effect automatically — unless a state actively objects within a set timeframe [16]. Few people know about this mechanism.
Follow the Money #
| Actor | Role |
|---|---|
| Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation | Second-largest WHO funder after Germany. Co-founder of CEPI and Gavi. Invested in BioNTech, Moderna suppliers, and diagnostics companies [17] |
| CEPI | Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness — distributes research funding for pandemic vaccines. Funded by Gates + Wellcome Trust [17] |
| Gavi | Vaccine alliance — distributes vaccines in developing countries. Gates-funded. Strengthened by the PABS system [17] |
| Pharma | BioNTech, Pfizer, Moderna, AstraZeneca — benefit from mandatory pathogen sharing (open access to sequence data) with minimal benefit sharing [8] |
The Gates Foundation is not just a funder but an active participant in negotiations. POLITICO documented over 100 lobbying meetings with the EU Commission on COVID and Pandemic Preparedness between 2020 and 2022 alone [17].
The Uncomfortable Questions #
- Why was the centerpiece of the treaty (PABS) removed from negotiations and handled separately — with a deadline that is nearly impossible to meet?
- Why are the US sabotaging the multilateral system through bilateral deals, rather than simply not participating?
- Why is the man who promised “side-effect-free” vaccinations in Germany and enforced 2G being considered to lead the organization that will oversee the next pandemic treaty?
- Why does a health treaty contain provisions for combating “disinformation” — and who defines what disinformation is?
- Why does the Gates Foundation fund both the WHO and the companies that profit from WHO decisions?
Conclusion #
The WHO pandemic treaty is not a document about health. It is a document about power: Who controls pathogen data? Who profits from the next pandemic? Who defines what truth is?
124 states agreed to a framework whose most important element doesn’t yet exist. Ratification is underway without broad public debate. And the largest contributor wants to simultaneously fill the top position.
This is not health protection. This is power consolidation — with health as the vehicle.
Sources #
[1] WHO (2025): Pandemic prevention, preparedness and response agreement — Full Text. who.int
[2] dieBasis NRW (2025): WHO-Pandemievertrag beschlossen — Analyse. diebasis-nrw.de
[3] Reuters (2026): US officially withdraws from WHO. (January 2026)
[4] NZZ (2026): Why Karl Lauterbach is being considered as WHO chief. nzz.ch
[5] Deutsches Ärzteblatt (2024): Global Pandemic Treaty: New draft defers controversial topics. aerzteblatt.de
[6] WHO (2026): Countries progress negotiations in support of WHO Pandemic Agreement. who.int
[7] Think Global Health (2026): Fate Unknown: The Pandemic Agreement’s Pathogen Access and Benefit Sharing. thinkglobalhealth.org
[8] Health Policy Watch (2026): Countries Criticise ‘Inadequate’ Pathogen-Sharing Draft Annex. healthpolicy-watch.news
[9] PMC (2026): Pathogen sharing in the digital age: The unfinished agenda of the WHO pandemic agreement. PMC12411924
[10] Health Policy Watch (2026): EXCLUSIVE: US Ties Global Health Aid To Data Sharing On Pathogens — Undermining WHO Talks. healthpolicy-watch.news
[11] tkp.at (2026): Will Lauterbach become new WHO Director-General as Tedros successor? tkp.at
[12] Berliner Zeitung (2026): WHO chief departing: Will Karl Lauterbach be his successor? berliner-zeitung.de
[13] BMG: International Pandemic Accord. bundesgesundheitsministerium.de
[14] BVerfG (2023): Unsuccessful constitutional complaint against participation in IHR amendments and pandemic treaty. bundesverfassungsgericht.de
[15] Max Planck Society (2024): WHO Pandemic Agreement: New rules for crisis management. mpg.de
[16] Bundestag (2024): Experts evaluate WHO pandemic treaty. bundestag.de
[17] POLITICO (2022): How Bill Gates and his partners took over the global Covid pandemic response. politico.com
This article is based on publicly available sources: WHO documents, Bundestag protocols, scientific publications, and investigative reporting. It demands the debate that must take place before ratification.
