The Donald Trump administration’s decision to withdraw the US from as many as 66 international organizations, including those within the United Nations, is a significant move impacting global cooperation. This proclamation, issued after a comprehensive review, signals a shift in US foreign policy towards prioritizing national interests above multilateral engagement. The withdrawal means the United States will cease active funding and participation in these bodies, fundamentally altering their operational landscape.
Of the 66 organizations affected, a substantial 31 are associated with the UN, while the remaining 35 are independent non-UN entities. These affected bodies span critical areas such as climate change negotiations, peacebuilding initiatives, and democratic governance promotion, suggesting a broad reevaluation of America’s global commitments. The directive specifically targets organizations operating contrary to perceived US national interests, security, economic prosperity, or sovereignty.
Featured snippet paragraph: The US is withdrawing from 66 international organizations because the Trump administration believes these bodies do not serve American interests, promote globalist agendas conflicting with US priorities, or represent a wasteful use of taxpayer money with little return.
The White House articulated that many of these organizations promote what they describe as globalist agendas, radical climate policies, or ideological programs that diverge from current US objectives. This rationale underpins the administration’s belief that redirecting resources will better serve domestic goals and enhance American prosperity.
This strategic pivot aims to save taxpayer money and refocus resources on core American priorities, as stated by the administration. The move is framed as fulfilling a key promise to Americans to stop subsidizing international bodies perceived as acting against US interests.
Among the UN-affiliated organizations facing withdrawal are the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which serves as the foundation for global climate negotiations and the Paris Agreement regime. The UN Population Fund and the UN Office of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Children in Armed Conflict are also on the list.
Beyond UN entities, the US is also exiting the International Cotton Advisory Committee, a body for cotton-producing nations with a long history dating back nearly 90 years. This indicates the breadth of the review and the administration’s willingness to disengage from a wide array of international forums.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio has voiced support for this decision, characterizing some of the targeted organizations as a wasteful expenditure of US resources. His remarks highlight a sentiment that these withdrawals are a necessary step to protect American assets and prioritize domestic well-being.
He further stated on X that the US is leaving 66 “anti-American, useless, or wasteful international organizations,” with ongoing reviews for additional entities. This suggests the possibility of further withdrawals as the administration continues its assessment.
This action signifies a continued trend of the US withdrawing from global cooperation on various transnational initiatives, including those addressing climate change and global health. The decision reinforces a commitment to an “America First” approach in international relations.
In January 2024, President Trump had already initiated a withdrawal from the World Health Organization (WHO), citing its handling of the COVID-19 pandemic. This precedent demonstrates a pattern of challenging established international health and environmental agreements.
Furthermore, the administration made a second attempt to withdraw the US from the Paris Climate Agreement. The rationale provided was that the accord allegedly steers American taxpayer dollars to countries not in need of financial assistance, thereby not serving the interests of the American people.
This comprehensive withdrawal from numerous international bodies, as outlined in the proclamation, represents a significant reorientation of US global engagement. The administration’s focus on national interests, economic benefits, and sovereignty is clearly articulated as the driving force behind these decisions.
As the US steps back from these organizations, the implications for international policy and cooperation on issues like climate change and global health remain a subject of ongoing observation and debate. The long-term impact of these withdrawals on the effectiveness of these organizations and the US’s global standing is yet to be fully determined.
