The United States is undertaking one of the most extensive withdrawals from international institutions in recent history. President Donald Trump announced plans to reduce U.S. participation in dozens of global organizations, signaling a significant recalibration of American foreign policy.
A White House memo outlines the decision to cut ties with 35 non-UN entities and 31 United Nations–affiliated bodies. Officials describe the move as part of the administration’s “America First” strategy, emphasizing national sovereignty and domestic priorities over multilateral commitments.
Rationale for the Withdrawals
According to the memo, many organizations no longer align with U.S. strategic interests. Officials cited ideological programs, globalist agendas, or climate policies that conflict with domestic priorities as primary concerns. Funding redirected from international operations will instead support infrastructure, healthcare, and economic programs at home. The administration argues this approach strengthens fiscal responsibility while protecting American sovereignty.
Which Organizations Are Affected
United Nations Agencies
Key UN bodies impacted include UN Women, which promotes gender equality, and the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), which supports reproductive health and family planning programs. Both agencies have long received U.S. support but have faced political scrutiny in past administrations. Other affected UN organizations focus on climate policy, development, and humanitarian aid.
Non-UN International Entities
Thirty-one non-UN organizations are also affected, spanning areas such as trade, energy, arms monitoring, and development finance. The U.S. will end or significantly reduce funding, advisory roles, and policy participation.
Legal and Executive Considerations
The memo stresses that withdrawals will occur “to the extent permitted by law.” Some commitments are tied to treaties or congressional appropriations, limiting unilateral executive action. Administration officials, however, maintain that the policy is legally sound and falls within presidential authority to safeguard national interests.
Continuing Trump-Era Policies
This decision extends the administration’s pattern of withdrawing from international agreements and institutions, following exits from the Paris Climate Accord and previous announcements regarding the World Health Organization. Critics note that the current scope is unprecedented in scale, covering trade, development, human rights, and environmental organizations.
Potential Impacts
Trade and Economy
Officials argue that leaving multilateral trade bodies provides the U.S. with greater flexibility in negotiating bilateral agreements. Opponents warn that reduced engagement could limit U.S. influence on global trade rules and oversight.
Climate and Environment
Climate-focused organizations that coordinate emissions monitoring and reduction initiatives will lose U.S. funding. The administration cites economic costs as justification, while environmental advocates caution that global climate cooperation could suffer.
Humanitarian and Development Programs
Withdrawals affect agencies supporting refugees, disaster relief, and poverty reduction, including UNHCR and UNDP. Supporters argue domestic redirection of funds is more efficient, but critics highlight risks to coordinated global responses and vulnerable populations.
Domestic and International Reactions
Global allies have expressed concern that U.S. withdrawal could diminish American leadership and create space for other powers to fill the void. Domestically, responses are sharply divided: supporters praise the assertion of sovereignty, while critics argue that credibility and influence on the world stage may be weakened.
Historical Context and Long-Term Considerations
While the U.S. has previously exited international organizations, the current breadth is exceptional, affecting over 60 institutions. Experts warn of reduced influence, potential disruptions to humanitarian programs, and strained diplomatic relations. Proponents argue that focusing on domestic priorities outweighs these risks.
Looking Forward
As implementation begins, questions remain about how organizations will adapt and whether the U.S. can maintain influence without formal participation. Administration officials have suggested selective re-engagement could occur if strategic interests require it. For now, the policy marks a clear shift toward prioritizing American sovereignty over multilateral involvement.
