"America First" Doctrine Deepens: U.S. Withdraws from 66 International Organizations, Reshaping Global Engagement
Washington D.C. — In a sweeping policy directive emblematic of its "America First" agenda, the United States has announced its withdrawal from 66 international organizations, signaling an intensified retrenchment from multilateral institutions. The move, disclosed via a Presidential Memorandum, targets a broad array of entities, including 35 non-United Nations bodies and 31 United Nations-affiliated organizations, which the administration asserts no longer serve American interests. This significant disengagement marks a profound reorientation of U.S. foreign policy, raising immediate questions about the future of global cooperation on critical issues ranging from climate change and health to human rights and cultural preservation.
The decision follows an extensive review of international intergovernmental organizations, conventions, and treaties, launched earlier this year by the Trump administration. White House statements emphasized that these withdrawals are aimed at ending U.S. participation and funding in entities deemed to undermine American independence, waste taxpayer dollars, or promote "globalist agendas" contrary to U.S. priorities. Administration officials characterized many of these bodies as "redundant in their scope, mismanaged, unnecessary, wasteful, poorly run, captured by the interests of actors advancing their own agendas contrary to our own, or a threat to our nation's sovereignty, freedoms, and general prosperity". This rationale underpins a broader strategy to prioritize domestic concerns such as infrastructure, military readiness, and border security, while critically reassessing financial contributions to global initiatives.
The "America First" Imperative: A Doctrine of Disengagement
The philosophical bedrock of these withdrawals is the "America First" doctrine, which advocates for a transactional approach to international relations, emphasizing national sovereignty and perceived economic benefits over collective global action. Critics of multilateralism within the administration have long argued that many international organizations impose undue burdens on the U.S., stifle economic growth, or harbor an inherent bias against American interests. The White House asserted that American taxpayers have spent billions on these organizations with little return, often finding that such bodies criticize U.S. policies or advance agendas conflicting with American values. The administration also expressed concerns about bodies promoting "radical climate policies, global governance, and ideological programs that conflict with U.S. sovereignty and economic strength". This perspective frames international engagement as a zero-sum game, where U.S. participation is only justified when it directly and demonstrably benefits American citizens and interests.
Broad Spectrum of Disengagement: Key Withdrawals Highlighted
The list of organizations from which the U.S. is withdrawing covers a wide array of global sectors, reflecting a comprehensive re-evaluation of U.S. commitments. Among the most prominent examples are significant exits from climate, health, human rights, and cultural bodies.
In the realm of climate action, the U.S. is once again initiating a withdrawal from the landmark Paris Agreement, a global accord designed to limit global warming. The administration previously initiated withdrawal from the Paris Agreement during a prior term, citing concerns that it would "undermine" the U.S. economy and place it at a "permanent disadvantage" by hindering the development of the fossil fuel sector. Further demonstrating this stance, the U.S. is also withdrawing from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the foundational treaty for international climate negotiations, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the leading global scientific body studying climate change. These actions are viewed by critics as isolating the U.S. and diminishing its role in addressing a global crisis.
Health organizations are also significantly impacted, with the U.S. announcing its withdrawal from the World Health Organization (WHO). This marks a renewed effort, echoing an initial attempt during a previous administration, and is based on allegations of mismanagement, corruption, unfair financial burdens on the U.S., and criticisms of the organization's handling of the COVID-19 pandemic. Such a withdrawal could severely impact WHO financing and global health initiatives, particularly in pandemic preparedness and cross-border collaboration.
In the area of human rights, the U.S. is withdrawing from the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC), a decision previously made in 2018. The stated reasons include the Council's perceived "chronic bias against Israel" and the inclusion of authoritarian regimes among its member states. Similarly, the U.S. is withdrawing from UNESCO, the UN's cultural and educational agency, citing an "outsized focus" on Sustainable Development Goals, "divisive social and cultural causes," and "anti-Israel sentiment". Furthermore, funding for the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) has been permanently halted, following accusations of anti-Israel bias and the alleged involvement of some employees in hostile activities.
Beyond these specific examples, the withdrawals include entities involved in economic development, cybersecurity, migration, and other areas, reflecting a comprehensive effort to disentangle the U.S. from commitments deemed inconsistent with national interests. The administration also previously withdrew from the Iran Nuclear Deal (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action or JCPOA), labeling it a "horrible, one-sided deal" that failed to protect U.S. national security and enabled Iran's "malign behavior".
Repercussions on the Global Stage
The ripple effects of such a large-scale withdrawal are expected to be substantial and far-reaching. Critics argue that this aggressive disengagement could lead to increased U.S. isolation on the global stage, diminished diplomatic influence, and a weakening of multilateral cooperation at a time when global challenges demand unified responses. The absence of the U.S., historically a significant financial contributor and influential voice in many of these organizations, could create substantial funding gaps and impact the effectiveness of critical programs.
Experts warn that stepping back from international bodies could also compromise the U.S.'s access to vital global data, intelligence, and collaborative networks, potentially hindering its ability to respond effectively to future crises, such as pandemics or environmental disasters. The move is seen by some as a "strategic blunder" that surrenders American advantage and creates a vacuum that other global powers may seek to fill. Allies have often expressed concern about the U.S. retreat from multilateralism, fearing it undermines the international rules-based order and cooperation on shared security and economic interests.
A Contested Path Forward
Domestically, these withdrawals are likely to reignite heated debates about America's proper role in the world. Proponents of the "America First" approach will champion the decisions as a necessary step to restore national sovereignty and ensure judicious use of taxpayer funds. They emphasize the importance of putting American interests first and question the efficacy and fairness of many international institutions.
Conversely, opponents, including many former diplomats, academics, and international relations experts, will likely condemn the actions as short-sighted, damaging to U.S. credibility, and detrimental to long-term global stability. They argue that engagement, even with imperfect institutions, is essential for addressing transnational problems and maintaining U.S. leadership. The debate often centers on whether the U.S. can effectively pursue its national interests through unilateral action in an increasingly interconnected world.
Conclusion
The decision by the United States to withdraw from 66 international organizations represents a profound and deliberate shift in its engagement with the global community. Driven by the "America First" doctrine, this policy aims to dismantle what the administration views as burdensome and ineffective multilateral commitments. While proponents hail it as a victory for national sovereignty and fiscal prudence, critics foresee a future of increased U.S. isolation, diminished influence, and a weakened global framework for addressing shared challenges. As these withdrawals proceed, the world watches to see the full implications of this historic recalibration of America's place on the international stage, setting a contested path for global cooperation in the years to come.
