The Trump administration’s sweeping decision to withdraw the United States from dozens of United Nations–linked and international organisations has reignited debate over America’s role in global governance, with experts warning that more institutions could soon face similar exits.
The move follows a February 2025 executive order signed by President Donald Trump directing a comprehensive review of U.S. support to all international organisations. That review culminated in Washington announcing its withdrawal from 66 global bodies, including 31 affiliated with the United Nations, marking one of the most significant retrenchments from multilateral institutions in modern U.S. history.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio defended the decision as a long-overdue recalibration rather than isolationism.
“We are rejecting an outdated model of multilateralism — one that treats the American taxpayer as the world’s underwriter for a sprawling architecture of global governance,” Rubio said, adding that the review of international organisations is ongoing. “Those subject to the January cuts are by no means the only offenders.”
Rubio stressed that the U.S. is not disengaging from the world, but reassessing what he described as an international system “overrun with hundreds of opaque organisations, overlapping mandates, duplicative actions, ineffective outputs, and poor financial and ethical governance.”
UN Pushback and Structural Criticism
The withdrawals triggered immediate concern within the United Nations. UN Secretary-General António Guterres expressed regret over the decision, with his spokesperson noting that assessed contributions to the UN’s regular and peacekeeping budgets are “a legal obligation under the UN Charter.”
However, critics inside Washington argue the UN has misinterpreted Trump’s intent. Hugh Dugan, a former senior National Security Council official during Trump’s first term, said UN leadership wrongly viewed the administration’s directive as a simple cost-cutting exercise.
“Instead of focusing on return on investment and efficiency, the UN resorted to blunt budget cuts that treated symptoms rather than causes,” Dugan said. He criticised the UN80 initiative — launched in March 2025 to reduce inefficiencies — as “business as usual” that failed to meaningfully reform operations.
Symbolic Cuts or Strategic Shift?
Policy analysts note that many of the organisations affected by the withdrawal receive limited U.S. funding. Brett Schaefer, a senior fellow specialising in international organisations, described the move as “more pruning around the margins than a wholesale abandonment of global engagement.”
“Some of these external bodies simply don’t merit U.S. funding or strategic attention,” Schaefer said. “In that sense, the withdrawals are largely symbolic — but symbolism matters.”
For UN-affiliated agencies, Schaefer argued the decision sends a clear message. “It signals where the U.S. would like to see consolidation and elimination of duplication, which is widespread across the UN system,” he said.
He added that exits from bodies such as the UN Population Fund and climate-related frameworks were consistent with long-standing Trump administration policy. Other withdrawals, including from trade and development entities, formalised earlier policy shifts dating back to Trump’s first term.
Not all departures, however, were universally understood. Schaefer questioned the logic behind leaving certain UN departments funded through the general UN budget, calling such moves “more of a political signal than an effective policy tool.”
Who Could Be Next?
As the State Department continues its review, analysts believe future rounds of withdrawals are likely. Organisations frequently cited as potential targets include humanitarian, agricultural, intellectual property, development, and meteorological agencies.
Critics within the administration argue that Washington does not require multilateral intermediaries to deliver humanitarian aid or development assistance. “The United States can support non-governmental organisations directly, without a middleman,” Schaefer said, pointing to concerns over mismanagement and politicisation in some agencies.
China’s growing influence inside several UN bodies has also emerged as a factor in the review. Analysts warn that leadership roles held by Chinese officials could enable Beijing to shape policies in ways that advance its geopolitical and commercial interests in developing countries.
At the same time, humanitarian agencies have defended their work and partnerships with Washington. Officials from several organisations have emphasised transparency measures, oversight mechanisms, and long-standing cooperation with U.S. agencies.
Strategic Consequences
The administration’s approach has split opinion in Washington. Supporters argue the withdrawals restore fiscal discipline and national sovereignty, while critics warn they risk diminishing U.S. influence in global rule-setting institutions.
Foreign policy experts caution that stepping back from multilateral platforms could allow rival powers to fill the vacuum. “If the U.S. disengages selectively but without a clear alternative strategy, it risks ceding leadership,” said a former diplomat familiar with UN negotiations.
As Trump’s second-term foreign policy takes shape, one thing is clear: the review of international organisations is far from over. With Secretary Rubio signalling further scrutiny ahead, global institutions are now watching Washington closely — uncertain which bodies may be next to face America’s exit.
