Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the State Sovereignty topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears bill to bar enforcement of international 'globalist' mandates; counties and nonprofits urge caution
Summary
HB 584 would prohibit state and local public employees from enforcing mandates of international organizations such as WHO, UN or WEF; supporters framed it as state‑sovereignty protection, opponents cited constitutional and funding risks and urged ITL.
Representative Michael Granger introduced HB 584, a proposal that would bar state and political subdivisions from enforcing directives, mandates or “edicts” from international organizations such as the World Health Organization (WHO), United Nations (UN) and World Economic Forum (WEF).
Representative Michael Granger (Stratford 2) told the Senate Judiciary Committee the bill is intended to “curtail globalism” and prevent public employees from treating international guidance as if it had the force of law. “Globalism is an ideology that seeks global governance,” Granger said. He pointed to the WHO’s role during the COVID‑19 pandemic and the ongoing negotiations over International Health Regulations as examples.
Supporters framed the bill as a forward‑looking protection of state sovereignty. Melissa Blasek, representing Rebuild NH, said the measure would guard New Hampshire against future international overreach, citing proposed amendments to the WHO’s International Health Regulations and calling the bill a way to “ensure that New Hampshire's future will not be dictated by the political whims of national or international bodies.” Aubrey Friedman of Bridgewater also testified in support, calling the measure “a crucial step in protecting the sovereignty of New Hampshire.”
Opponents — including the New Hampshire Association of Counties — warned the bill’s private‑right provisions and broad language could create legal conflicts and jeopardize federal funding. Kate Horgan, on behalf of the Association of Counties, told the committee that counties provide services to vulnerable populations (including nursing homes) and could face a choice between compliance and losing federal grants and licensure. Horgan said the bill’s language left unclear whether following federal agencies such as the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) would create liability if CMS guidance mirrored recommendations from an international body.
Why it matters: Testimony touched on the practical tension between federal funding and state policymaking. The Finance Committee later raised an estimate that failure to align with federal refugee/resettlement guidance could risk significant federal funds; debate also addressed whether the bill would create private causes of action that invite litigation.
Committee action: At a later point in the session the Senate Judiciary Committee voted by voice to recommend ITL (inexpedient to legislate) on HB 584. Committee members cited concerns about wording, potential for litigation, and the bill’s broad scope.
Context and limitations: Witnesses disagreed about whether the WHO or other international organizations ever have had direct regulatory force over states. Opponents argued existing federal and state mechanisms address international guidance and that the bill could produce unintended consequences for health and human‑services providers that rely on federal funds and licensing.
Ending: The committee’s ITL recommendation halts immediate progress on HB 584; sponsors and advocates framed the measure as a sovereignty safeguard and said they may continue to pursue similar protections.
