The U.S. government, under the Trump administration, announced its withdrawal from 66 international organizations, following a review of U.S. participation and funding in various international bodies. This action, implemented through an executive order, includes 31 entities affiliated with the United Nations. Administration officials cited reasons such as redundancy, mismanagement, and perceived conflict with U.S. interests for the withdrawals.
Announcement and Scope
The decision to withdraw from 66 international organizations was announced by the Trump administration. These organizations primarily encompass agencies, commissions, and advisory panels, with 31 of them being affiliated with the United Nations. The affected bodies focus on areas such as climate, labor, and migration.
Among the non-U.N. organizations from which the U.S. withdrew are the Partnership for Atlantic Cooperation, the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, and the Global Counterterrorism Forum. Notable U.N. entities on the withdrawal list include U.N. Women, the U.N. Population Fund (UNFPA), the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), and the Office of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Violence Against Children.
Major U.N. agencies such as UNICEF and the World Food Programme were not included in this withdrawal. The U.S. also maintained its participation in key U.N. bodies like the Security Council and continued funding for other multilateral organizations, including the International Atomic Energy Agency.
Stated Rationale for Withdrawals
Secretary of State Marco Rubio stated that the administration deemed the institutions mismanaged, unnecessary, wasteful, and poorly run, asserting that their interests ran "contrary" to U.S. interests. An executive order signed by the administration stated that the organizations "undermine America's independence and waste taxpayer dollars on ineffective or hostile agendas." Secretary Rubio further commented that it was "no longer acceptable to be sending these institutions the blood, sweat, and treasure of the American people, with little to nothing to show for it."
The Trump administration adopted a selective approach to funding international bodies, prioritizing those aligned with its agenda. Thomas Bollyky, director of the Global Health program at the Council on Foreign Relations, suggested the administration perceived many international organizations as dominated by a "progressive ideology," particularly concerning gender equality and environmental matters.
Context of Previous Withdrawals and Policy Shifts
This action built upon prior withdrawals by the Trump administration from agencies such as the World Health Organization, the U.N. agency for Palestinian refugees (UNRWA), the U.N. Human Rights Council, and UNESCO. Funding for the U.N. Population Fund (UNFPA) had also been cut during the administration's first term.
Daniel Forti, head of U.N. affairs at the International Crisis Group, characterized this as the U.S. approach to multilateralism, emphasizing cooperation on Washington's terms. This policy marked a deviation from previous U.S. administrations' engagement with the U.N., leading to staffing and program adjustments within the world body. Independent nongovernmental agencies have reported project closures due to reductions in foreign assistance through USAID.
U.S. officials, including former President Trump, expressed intent to focus taxpayer funds on expanding American influence in specific U.N. standard-setting initiatives, such as the International Telecommunications Union, the International Maritime Organization, and the International Labor Organization, particularly in areas of competition with China. The administration reportedly shifted towards emphasizing bilateral agreements as its strategy for addressing issues like counterterrorism, energy, child trafficking, and health.
Specific Impacts and Reactions
-
U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC): The withdrawal from UNFCCC, a 1992 agreement among 198 countries to support climate change activities in developing nations, marks a further step away from international climate organizations. The UNFCCC serves as the foundational treaty for the Paris climate agreement, from which the Trump administration also withdrew. The UNFCCC was ratified by the U.S. Senate in 1992. The Environmental Defense Fund stated that the U.S. would become the only country not engaged in the UNFCCC upon the withdrawal's effect. The Natural Resources Defense Council noted the U.S. could rejoin under a future administration. Critics argued this move forfeited the U.S.'s ability to influence global climate initiatives.
-
U.N. Population Fund (UNFPA): The UNFPA is an agency providing sexual and reproductive health services globally. Funding for the agency had been cut during the Trump administration's first term, following accusations by some GOP officials regarding the agency's alleged participation in certain activities. Beth Schlachter of MSI Reproductive Choices reported "profound" impacts from previous U.S. funding halts to the UNFPA, citing clinic closures, job losses for medical personnel, and disruptions in medical supply chains. She further indicated that withdrawing entirely from the agency could undermine its legitimacy. The UNFPA stated it had not been officially notified by the U.S. regarding the withdrawal. Payal Shah, director of research and legal work at Physicians for Human Rights, questioned the implications of defining institutions promoting equality and protecting vulnerable populations as contrary to U.S. interests.
Expert Perspectives and Broader Implications
Nina Schwalbe, a senior scholar at the Georgetown Center for Global Policy and Politics, described the action as a significant move with broad potential implications across various sectors, including children's education, climate change, and arts and culture. She also raised concerns that the U.S. withdrawal could create an opening for increased Chinese influence within the U.N. system.
Conversely, Brett Schaefer, a U.N. expert at the American Enterprise Institute, characterized the withdrawal as "pruning around the margins" and a "missed opportunity," suggesting he would have preferred withdrawals from more significant organizations, particularly those that receive substantial U.S. funding within the U.N. system.
The U.N. Secretary-General's office expressed regret regarding the White House announcement, emphasizing that assessed contributions to the U.N. regular and peacekeeping budgets are legal obligations for all Member States, including the United States, under the U.N. Charter.
Daniel Forti of the International Crisis Group noted that this action aligns with the Trump administration's broader trend of distancing the U.S. from multilateral organizations and communicates to other countries that the U.S. seeks to dictate its own terms within the multilateral system. Thomas Bollyky cautioned that bilateral approaches have limitations, noting that difficulties in making progress on cross-border challenges, such as health and climate, could impact Americans.