GOP Declares War on WHO's Pandemic Powers and Biden's Immigration Program

Paul Riverbank, 6/27/2025In a significant push to curb executive authority, Republican lawmakers are advancing legislation requiring Senate approval for WHO pandemic treaties and seeking to eliminate the Deferred Enforced Departure program. These moves reflect growing concerns about international influence and executive overreach in crucial policy areas.

Last week's introduction of two significant bills caught my attention, particularly for their timing. Wisconsin Representative Tom Tiffany, backed by nine House colleagues, has revived legislation demanding Senate scrutiny of any WHO pandemic treaty. Having covered international health policy for two decades, I've rarely seen such pointed skepticism of global health governance.

"The WHO proved it cannot be trusted with anything," Tiffany declared in a statement that, while blunt, echoes concerns I've heard from numerous lawmakers and health experts. The organization's handling of early pandemic communications - especially regarding human-to-human transmission - left many questioning its independence from Beijing.

The bill's bipartisan passage in 2024 wasn't surprising to those of us who've tracked similar pushback against executive agreements. Remember Obama's Paris climate accord and Iran nuclear deal? Both sidestepped traditional Senate treaty approval, leaving lasting procedural questions that this legislation aims to address.

Meanwhile, on the immigration front, Texas Representative Chip Roy has launched what might be an even more consequential effort. His "End DED Act" targets the little-known but significant Deferred Enforced Departure program. As someone who's reported on immigration policy since the 1990s, I can tell you this discretionary presidential power has flown under the radar while protecting thousands from deportation.

Roy's characterization of DED as a "fabrication" might sound harsh, but it highlights genuine constitutional questions about executive authority. I've watched successive administrations expand these powers, often testing the boundaries of presidential discretion in immigration matters.

The Federation for American Immigration Reform's support isn't surprising - they've long advocated for stricter congressional oversight of executive immigration powers. Their spokesman Ira Mehlman's criticism of the Biden administration's use of DED reflects broader conservative concerns about executive overreach in immigration policy.

What's particularly striking about these parallel efforts is their timing. They emerge as Americans increasingly question the balance between global engagement and national sovereignty - a debate that's grown more urgent since the pandemic upended traditional international relationships.

From my perspective, these bills represent more than just routine legislative proposals - they signal a fundamental shift in how Congress approaches executive authority in foreign affairs. Whether they'll succeed in redefining these boundaries remains to be seen, but their impact on future international agreements and immigration policy could be profound.

The Republican party's latest legislative agenda reveals a deepening rift between international cooperation and domestic sovereignty - a tension I've watched build steadily since the COVID-19 pandemic began.Last week's introduction of two significant bills caught my attention, particularly for their timing. Wisconsin Representative Tom Tiffany, backed by nine House colleagues, has revived legislation demanding Senate scrutiny of any WHO pandemic treaty. Having covered international health policy for two decades, I've rarely seen such pointed skepticism of global health governance."The WHO proved it cannot be trusted with anything," Tiffany declared in a statement that, while blunt, echoes concerns I've heard from numerous lawmakers and health experts. The organization's handling of early pandemic communications - especially regarding human-to-human transmission - left many questioning its independence from Beijing.The bill's bipartisan passage in 2024 wasn't surprising to those of us who've tracked similar pushback against executive agreements. Remember Obama's Paris climate accord and Iran nuclear deal? Both sidestepped traditional Senate treaty approval, leaving lasting procedural questions that this legislation aims to address.Meanwhile, on the immigration front, Texas Representative Chip Roy has launched what might be an even more consequential effort. His "End DED Act" targets the little-known but significant Deferred Enforced Departure program. As someone who's reported on immigration policy since the 1990s, I can tell you this discretionary presidential power has flown under the radar while protecting thousands from deportation.Roy's characterization of DED as a "fabrication" might sound harsh, but it highlights genuine constitutional questions about executive authority. I've watched successive administrations expand these powers, often testing the boundaries of presidential discretion in immigration matters.The Federation for American Immigration Reform's support isn't surprising - they've long advocated for stricter congressional oversight of executive immigration powers. Their spokesman Ira Mehlman's criticism of the Biden administration's use of DED reflects broader conservative concerns about executive overreach in immigration policy.What's particularly striking about these parallel efforts is their timing. They emerge as Americans increasingly question the balance between global engagement and national sovereignty - a debate that's grown more urgent since the pandemic upended traditional international relationships.From my perspective, these bills represent more than just routine legislative proposals - they signal a fundamental shift in how Congress approaches executive authority in foreign affairs. Whether they'll succeed in redefining these boundaries remains to be seen, but their impact on future international agreements and immigration policy could be profound.