The United States' Withdrawal from International and UN Organizations

9th January 2026

On January 7, 2026, President Donald Trump signed a Presidential Memorandum directing the withdrawal of the United States from dozens of international organizations.

The move affects 66 institutions — 35 non-UN organizations and 31 UN entities — which the administration claims are "contrary to U.S. national interests, security, economic prosperity, or sovereignty."

This decision represents a dramatic escalation of Trump's long-standing skepticism toward multilateralism.

The Administration's Rationale
The White House and State Department framed the withdrawal as a matter of efficiency and sovereignty:

Wasteful and ineffective: Many organizations were described as redundant, poorly managed, or "captured by actors advancing their own agendas contrary to ours."

Economic burden: U.S. contributions were portrayed as excessive, draining taxpayer resources without delivering tangible benefits.

Sovereignty concerns: Trump argued that international bodies often constrain U.S. decision-making, undermining national independence.

Organizations Affected
According to reporting, the withdrawals include:

UN agencies: Bodies promoting gender equality, climate action, and human rights.

Global treaties: A major climate treaty and other multilateral frameworks.

Specialized institutions: Technical and regulatory organizations seen as duplicative or hostile to U.S. interests.

Promises vs. Facts

Claim Administration’s Position -Critics’ Response
“These organizations are wasteful”
Trump officials cite redundancy and mismanagement Critics argue many bodies provide essential coordination on health, climate, and trade

“Withdrawal protects sovereignty”
U.S. independence strengthened
Opponents warn isolation weakens U.S. influence and global leadership

“Taxpayers save money”
Reduced contributions free resources
Savings may be offset by costs of bilateral arrangements and loss of influence

Domestic and Global Reactions
Supporters: Some conservatives welcomed the move as a long-overdue correction, freeing the U.S. from “globalist entanglements.”

Critics: Diplomats, allies, and NGOs warned of diminished U.S. credibility, loss of leadership in climate and human rights, and potential damage to global stability.

Allies’ concern: European and Asian partners expressed alarm, fearing that U.S. disengagement could embolden rivals like China and Russia to dominate international institutions.

Risks and Trade-offs
Strategic isolation: By leaving, the U.S. risks ceding influence in setting global standards.

Economic impact: American businesses may face disadvantages if regulatory frameworks are shaped without U.S. input.

Soft power erosion: Withdrawal undermines the image of the U.S. as a leader in democracy and cooperation.

President Trump’s withdrawal from dozens of international and UN organizations is a watershed moment in U.S. foreign policy.

It dramatizes the tension between sovereignty and multilateralism, between short-term savings and long-term influence. Whether this strategy secures America’s independence or leaves it isolated will depend on how rivals and allies respond in the years ahead.