President Donald Trump has announced one of the most far-reaching changes to U.S. foreign policy in decades, confirming that the United States will withdraw from a total of 66 international organizations, including both United Nations bodies and non-U.N. institutions.
The decision, outlined in an internal White House memo and later confirmed by administration officials, signals a dramatic narrowing of America’s role in multilateral governance and global cooperation. According to the administration, the move reflects a broader effort to realign U.S. foreign engagement around what officials describe as “national sovereignty, fiscal responsibility, and strategic independence.”
The withdrawals affect 35 non-U.N. organizations and 31 United Nations entities, cutting U.S. participation, funding, or both, to the extent permitted under existing law.
A Continuation of Trump’s “America First” Strategy
The announcement fits squarely within Trump’s long-standing “America First” philosophy, which has consistently challenged the value of international institutions and multilateral agreements. During both his first and second terms, Trump has argued that many global bodies burden U.S. taxpayers, dilute American sovereignty, and promote what he describes as ideological agendas that conflict with domestic priorities.
In a statement accompanying the decision, the White House said the withdrawals would “end American taxpayer funding and involvement in entities that advance globalist agendas over U.S. priorities, or that address important issues inefficiently or ineffectively.”
Officials emphasized that the move does not mean the United States is abandoning diplomacy entirely, but rather refocusing engagement through bilateral relationships and organizations that align more closely with U.S. interests.
Not an Isolated Move
This is not Trump’s first major break with international institutions. During his earlier presidency, he announced U.S. withdrawals from the World Health Organization and the Paris Climate Agreement, moves that drew intense criticism from allies but were applauded by supporters who viewed them as overdue corrections.
Last year, the United States was also notably absent from the United Nations international climate summit for the first time in nearly three decades, a decision that signaled growing distance between Washington and global climate frameworks.
This latest step, however, goes much further in scope.
The Organizations Affected
The White House confirmed that the United States is withdrawing from a wide range of organizations covering climate policy, development, trade, cultural preservation, democracy promotion, and environmental protection.
Among the non-U.N. organizations the U.S. will no longer participate in are:
-
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
-
International Renewable Energy Agency
-
International Solar Alliance
-
International Union for Conservation of Nature
-
Global Counterterrorism Forum
-
Global Forum on Cyber Expertise
-
International Energy Forum
-
International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance
-
International Tropical Timber Organization
-
Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme
-
Renewable Energy Policy Network for the 21st Century
In addition, the U.S. is withdrawing from numerous scientific, cultural, and development-focused bodies that have long relied on American participation and funding.
On the United Nations side, the decision affects a broad cross-section of departments and programs, including:
-
U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change
-
U.N. Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women
-
U.N. Population Fund
-
U.N. Conference on Trade and Development
-
U.N. Oceans
-
U.N. Water
-
U.N. University
-
Peacebuilding Commission and Peacebuilding Fund
-
U.N. Democracy Fund
-
U.N. Energy
-
International Law Commission
According to the memo, “withdrawal means ceasing participation in or funding to those entities to the extent permitted by law.”
Why These Groups Were Targeted
White House officials said the organizations were selected because they allegedly promote “radical climate policies, global governance, and ideological programs” that conflict with U.S. economic and sovereignty goals.
Administration sources also pointed to what they described as overlapping missions, inefficiency, and lack of accountability within many of the organizations.
Supporters of the move argue that the United States has long carried a disproportionate share of funding responsibilities while receiving limited tangible benefit in return.
“This is about accountability,” one senior official said. “The American people should not be paying for institutions that do not serve American interests.”
Reaction From Supporters
Conservative lawmakers and commentators largely praised the decision, framing it as a long-overdue correction to decades of what they view as unchecked global bureaucracy.
Some argued that international institutions increasingly operate as political bodies rather than neutral platforms, pushing policies that conflict with U.S. cultural, economic, and political values.
“This is the United States taking back control of its future,” said one Republican lawmaker. “We can cooperate with other nations without surrendering our sovereignty.”
Others pointed to the financial aspect, saying the move could redirect billions of dollars back into domestic priorities.
Reaction From Critics
Critics, however, warned that the withdrawals could significantly weaken America’s influence on the global stage.
Former diplomats and international policy experts said the decision risks isolating the United States at a time when geopolitical competition with China and Russia is intensifying.
“These institutions are where influence is exercised,” said one former U.N. official. “If the U.S. walks away, others will fill the vacuum.”
Environmental groups, in particular, criticized the withdrawal from climate-related organizations, arguing that it undermines global efforts to address climate change, deforestation, and biodiversity loss.
Human rights advocates also expressed concern about the U.S. leaving programs focused on women’s rights, child protection, and post-conflict recovery.
Strategic Calculations
The administration insists the decision is not about retreating from leadership, but redefining it.
Officials say the U.S. will continue to engage with allies directly and through select institutions, while cutting ties with those deemed ineffective or misaligned.
Trump has long argued that international bodies often constrain U.S. policy rather than empower it, and that America’s economic and military strength allows it to lead without relying on multilateral frameworks.
Global Implications
The withdrawals are expected to have ripple effects across diplomatic, humanitarian, and environmental sectors.
Some programs may face significant funding shortfalls, while others could seek increased support from European or Asian nations.
China, in particular, has steadily expanded its influence within U.N. agencies in recent years, and analysts say the U.S. exit could accelerate that trend.
Domestic Political Impact
Domestically, the move is likely to become a major talking point ahead of upcoming elections, with Republicans praising Trump for defending sovereignty and Democrats accusing him of abandoning global responsibility.
Trump supporters view the decision as a fulfillment of campaign promises, while opponents argue it risks long-term damage to America’s diplomatic credibility.
Trump’s Broader Vision
For Trump, the decision fits into a broader narrative: reducing foreign entanglements, renegotiating alliances, and focusing on domestic strength.
“This is about putting America first in every sense,” one administration aide said. “We can cooperate with the world without being controlled by it.”
What Happens Next
In practical terms, U.S. representatives will gradually withdraw from meetings, committees, and funding obligations associated with the listed organizations. Legal teams will oversee the process to ensure compliance with U.S. statutes and treaty obligations.
Some withdrawals may take effect immediately, while others could take months or even years to fully implement.
A Defining Moment
Whether viewed as a bold assertion of sovereignty or a risky retreat from global leadership, Trump’s decision marks a defining moment in modern U.S. foreign policy.
For supporters, it represents independence.
For critics, it represents isolation.
For the world, it signals that the United States is fundamentally reshaping how it chooses to engage beyond its borders.
And as international reactions continue to unfold, one thing is certain: the consequences of this decision will extend far beyond Washington — and far beyond this presidency.
Emily Johnson is a critically acclaimed essayist and novelist known for her thought-provoking works centered on feminism, women’s rights, and modern relationships. Born and raised in Portland, Oregon, Emily grew up with a deep love of books, often spending her afternoons at her local library. She went on to study literature and gender studies at UCLA, where she became deeply involved in activism and began publishing essays in campus journals. Her debut essay collection, Voices Unbound, struck a chord with readers nationwide for its fearless exploration of gender dynamics, identity, and the challenges faced by women in contemporary society. Emily later transitioned into fiction, writing novels that balance compelling storytelling with social commentary. Her protagonists are often strong, multidimensional women navigating love, ambition, and the struggles of everyday life, making her a favorite among readers who crave authentic, relatable narratives. Critics praise her ability to merge personal intimacy with universal themes. Off the page, Emily is an advocate for women in publishing, leading workshops that encourage young female writers to embrace their voices. She lives in Seattle with her partner and two rescue cats, where she continues to write, teach, and inspire a new generation of storytellers.
