The U.S. Rejects U.N.’s Political Declaration on Non-Communicable Diseases

In a move that has already sparked debate on the global stage, U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced that the United States will not support the United Nations’ Political Declaration on Non-Communicable Diseases (NCDs). While critics in mainstream outlets are quick to paint the decision as “controversial,” the truth is that walking away from this agreement is a powerful stand for sovereignty, medical freedom, and informed consent.

Overreach by Global Bureaucracies

The first problem with the declaration is its scope. Far beyond recognizing the growing toll of heart disease, cancer, and diabetes, the text pushes prescriptive measures that blur the line between international cooperation and domestic control. It calls for “management by international bodies,” global taxation schemes, and regulatory frameworks that may override the authority of sovereign nations.

Americans did not elect the U.N., nor did we cede our right to determine tax policy or health regulations to distant committees of international, unelected bureaucrats. Handing over power to global regulators sets a dangerous precedent, one where health policy could be dictated without accountability to the people it affects.

Ideology Disguised as Health Policy

Even more concerning, the draft included language linking NCDs to gender ideologies and abortion rights agendas. While defenders argue that these references are minimal, Kennedy called it what it is: ideology smuggled into what should be a scientific and public health declaration.

“…we cannot accept language that pushes destructive gender ideology. Neither can we accept claims of a constitutional or international right to abortion. ” 

-Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

By introducing terms that can be interpreted as establishing new “rights” to abortion or embedding “gender ideology,” the U.N. attempted to advance cultural battles under the guise of disease prevention. Health policy must be rooted in science and the protection of human dignity, not turned into a Trojan horse for divisive agendas.

Misdirected Priorities

Finally, Kennedy pointed out that the declaration does “too much and too little.” It leans heavily into punitive fiscal tools like taxation on food, alcohol, or tobacco, yet fails to meaningfully address the deeper systemic drivers of chronic disease: ultra-processed foods, pharmaceutical overreach, environmental toxins and vaccines, and a lack of transparency in medical science.

For decades, governments and international bodies have ignored skyrocketing rates of autism, autoimmune conditions, and other chronic illnesses that cannot be explained away by “lifestyle choices.” The declaration sidesteps these issues entirely, conveniently protecting the very industries that profit from our growing epidemics. This isn’t public health. It’s misdirection.

A Stand for Sovereignty and Informed Consent

Walking away from this declaration is more than a policy choice. It’s a declaration of independence from the expanding overreach of global health governance. The American people have a right to chart their own course, to demand that their leaders focus on transparency, accountability, and real science rather than submitting to policies crafted behind closed doors in New York or Geneva.

For those of us who believe in medical freedom, the principle is simple: health policies should be made by and for the people, with full transparency and without coercion. The U.N. declaration fails on every one of those counts.

Conclusion

The chronic disease crisis is real, and it deserves urgent attention. But the solution will not come from global bodies prescribing taxes, embedding ideology, or ignoring the elephant in the room: the role of medical policy, industry capture, and the status quo in fueling today’s epidemics.

If the fight against non-communicable diseases must be fought, it should be on the terms of sovereignty, transparency, and informed consent.