“Committed to reintroduce legislation (the No WHO Pandemic Preparedness Treaty Without Senate Approval Act) to require any World Health Organization pandemic agreement to be treated as a treaty needing two-thirds Senate approval, to hold the WHO accountable and protect U.S. sovereignty.”
Sources (click to view full provenance)
Propose an edit to this promise's details
Suggest a sourced correction to the promise text, topic, scope, significance, or dates. Changing the promise text requires a source. Your suggestion is reviewed before it changes the record.
Sign in and complete the Contributor Agreement to propose an edit.
Assessments
evidence-backed verdictsThese are sourced verdicts from fact-checkers or community evidence reviews — not opinions.
The promise's committed action is to REINTRODUCE the named bill (the No WHO Pandemic Preparedness Treaty Without Senate Approval Act), not to enact it. Ron Johnson fully performed that action — and did so repeatedly as lead sponsor. He introduced S.444 in the 118th Congress (introduced 02/15/2023; died in the Committee on Foreign Relations, never received a vote), then reintroduced it as S.1983 in the 119th Congress (introduced 06/05/2025; referred to committee). Both bills carry the exact title and substance described in the promise: requiring any convention/agreement/instrument on pandemic prevention reached by the World Health Assembly/WHO to be subject to Senate ratification (two-thirds approval as a treaty). The reintroduction is entirely within a senator's unilateral power and was completed 100%, twice. The prior rating (CHAMPIONED, 0.9) under-credited by treating non-enactment as reducing the score, but enactment/passage was never the promise ('reintroduce,' not 'pass'). Applying the promise-as-stated standard identically to any party, a fulfilled 'reintroduce' commitment is FULL. Sources verified independently via GovTrack (mirrors Library of Congress data); congress.gov bill pages are genuine (they block automated fetch but the records are real).
Your opinion on this assessment(clearly labeled opinion)
Sign in to vote.
Discussion
community opinionsComments are user opinions — not verdicts. They do not affect the official assessment.
Sign in to join the discussion.
Propose a correction
community accountabilitySee an error in the promise text, status, significance, or missing source? Submit a sourced correction — a reviewer will evaluate and apply it if accurate. Your submission must cite evidence; unsourced changes are not accepted.
Sign in or create an account to propose a correction.
Debate
sourced community argumentsThese are sourced community arguments — not StumpWatch assessments. Each cites a source and is community-contributed; it does not change the official status or rating above.
No arguments yet
Be the first to weigh in. Every argument cites a source and is reviewed before it publishes. Create an account to add one and help keep this promise honest.
Add a sourced argument
Cite a source for your point. Submissions are held for reviewer approval before they appear.
Sign in or create an account to add an argument.