The United States is confronting a growing threat to its sovereignty. This threat comes not from a foreign army but from unelected international bureaucrats who increasingly seek to shape American law, policy and economic outcomes without democratic accountability.
Through the edicts of global institutions such as the United Nations and the World Health Organization, foreign bodies with no obligation to U.S. voters are exerting outsized influence over decisions that should remain firmly in American hands.
That is why President Trump’s push to withdraw the United States from dozens of international organizations that no longer serve American interests is timely and necessary. His executive order directing U.S. withdrawal from 66 international bodies reflects a clear recognition that foreign institutions should not be allowed to override domestic judgment, particularly when those institutions advance political agendas under the guise of expertise.
One of the clearest and most troubling examples of this problem is how speculative “junk science” generated by international organizations is being weaponized in American courtrooms, effectively allowing foreign bureaucracies to regulate U.S. industry through litigation. This is not science informing law; it is lawfare masquerading as science, and it poses a direct challenge to American sovereignty.
One institution, in particular, illustrates how that process now works in practice: the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). Few issues carry the emotional weight that cancer does, given how many families have lost loved ones to the disease. This is precisely why claims about carcinogenic risk demand extraordinary scientific discipline and accountability, and why the United States should not allow a WHO-funded body to shape American lawsuits with questionable science without any oversight.
Despite the gravity of what is at stake, IARC does not assess real-world risk. Instead, it focuses on theoretical hazards, often relying on selective or low-quality studies while ignoring broader bodies of evidence. The result is a steady stream of alarming classifications that are used to justify massive jury awards that distort markets — all without going through any U.S. regulatory or legislative process. That is foreign influence by another name.
The litigation against Bayer and its subsidiary Monsanto illustrates how this system works. In multiple cases, juries were persuaded that glyphosate — the active ingredient in Roundup — was carcinogenic, relying heavily on IARC’s 2015 classification, labeling it “probably carcinogenic.” That conclusion stood in stark contrast to the findings of the Environmental Protection Agency and other regulators worldwide, including authorities in Canada, Australia, Japan and the European Union, all of which found no credible link between glyphosate and cancer.
Yet IARC’s outlier classification became the linchpin for lawsuits that have resulted in billions of dollars in damages. Whatever one’s views on the underlying product, the broader issue is far more serious: a foreign, unaccountable body is effectively setting de facto safety standards inside the American civil justice system, overriding U.S. regulators and bypassing democratic oversight altogether.
Unfortunately, this is far from an isolated incident. The IARC has similarly labeled common substances and activities — from processed foods to working night shifts — as carcinogenic or “possibly” carcinogenic, often using methodologies that many have criticized for being deeply flawed. In 2023, for example, it classified the artificial sweetener aspartame as “possibly carcinogenic,” a determination that the Food and Drug Administration promptly rejected, noting significant weaknesses in the studies IARC relied upon.
When such bodies succeed in influencing American courts, the result is not better science or safer products, but a quiet erosion of U.S. self-government that creates a dangerous precedent. It invites international organizations to export their policy preferences into U.S. law, one jury verdict at a time. It also undermines the authority of American agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration and Environmental Protection Agency that are staffed by world-class scientists, accountable to elected officials, and grounded in rigorous, evidence-based standards tailored to U.S. conditions.
Protecting American sovereignty from these threats will require concrete action.
For starters, the United States should immediately end all funding for the WHO and its subsidiary bodies, including IARC. American taxpayers should not bankroll institutions that undermine American law.
In the meantime, Congress and federal agencies should formally reject the use of IARC classifications as a basis for U.S. legal or regulatory decisions. Foreign hazard determinations should not be treated as authoritative evidence in American courts when they conflict with the conclusions of U.S. regulators.
Finally, the administration should make clear that U.S. science policy — and U.S. justice — will be governed by American standards, American evidence and American accountability. That is not isolationism. It is sovereignty.
The misuse of junk science is not merely a technical problem for lawyers and judges. It is a warning sign of a broader challenge: the steady encroachment of foreign influence into American decision-making. If the United States is serious about reclaiming control over its laws, economy and institutions, confronting the WHO and IARC is not optional. It is an essential next step.
