WHO Did Not Endorse Lockdowns, Contradicting Health Officials’ Claims

The Biden administration’s decision to formally exit the World Health Organization last month has ignited a heated debate about the WHO’s role in recommending COVID-19 containment measures during the pandemic. Key officials in the administration have made claims that the WHO “pushed” or “promoted” lockdowns—statements that have prompted sharp rebuttals from the organization’s leadership.

On January 22, the day of the U.S. withdrawal, Acting CDC Director Jim O’Neill posted on X that the WHO “ignored rigorous science and promoted lockdowns.” NIH Director Dr. Jay Bhattacharya echoed this sentiment in a Fox News interview, claiming the WHO was “pushing, still to this day… lockdown policies that plagued Americans for years.”

These accusations drew immediate responses from WHO officials. Maria Van Kerkhove, the organization’s technical lead for COVID-19, called the statements “untrue,” insisting that “we don’t ignore science and WHO never recommended lockdowns.” The organization released a statement clarifying that while it supported measures like masks, vaccines, and physical distancing, it “at no stage recommended mask mandates, vaccine mandates or lockdowns.”

The controversy mirrors a similar dispute from October 2020, when then-President Donald Trump incorrectly stated that the WHO had admitted he was “right” about lockdowns being “worse than the problem itself.”

A closer examination of the WHO’s documented positions reveals a more nuanced stance. Throughout the pandemic, the organization maintained that it neither explicitly recommended lockdowns nor advised against them. Instead, it acknowledged that such measures could be necessary in certain circumstances while recognizing their potential societal harm.

“WHO recognizes that at certain points, some countries have had no choice but to issue stay-at-home orders and other measures, to buy time,” states a WHO Q&A document from December 2020. The organization expressed hope that countries would “use targeted interventions where and when needed, based on the local situation.”

The dispute partly stems from differing interpretations of the WHO’s early assessment of China’s response. A February 2020 WHO-China Joint Mission report praised China’s aggressive containment measures, which some interpret as an implicit endorsement of lockdowns. However, WHO officials maintain that acknowledging a country’s sovereign decisions is different from recommending others follow suit.

Adding to the complexity is the lack of a universal definition of “lockdowns.” Measures varied dramatically across countries—from China’s severe restrictions preventing residents from leaving their apartments without permission to America’s more limited stay-at-home orders and business closures, which were implemented at state and local levels rather than federally.

The semantic battle continued on social media, with Dr. Bhattacharya posting what he called “receipts” of evidence that the WHO had supported lockdowns, including statements about what countries should do before lifting such measures. Van Kerkhove responded that this was a “deliberate misinterpretation,” reiterating that the WHO “neither recommended nor categorically opposed lockdowns.”

Lawrence Gostin, a global health law professor at Georgetown University, provides context to the dispute: “We forget how frightening the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic were. We had no vaccines or treatments and the virus was spreading exponentially. In that context, a temporary lockdown was clearly justified to buy time for the development and deployment of vaccines.”

Gostin added that while WHO officials did praise China’s response—which he called “irresponsible”—the claims against the organization “lack any subtlety or context” and emphasized that the “WHO has no power to order lockdowns & it never did.”

As the United States charts its path forward outside the WHO, this controversy highlights the challenges of global health governance during crisis situations and the complex relationship between international recommendations and national sovereignty in public health decisions.