U.S. Withdraws From 66 International Organizations Under Trump-Era Policy Shift
The United States is undergoing one of the most consequential changes in modern foreign policy, marked by a large-scale withdrawal from dozens of international organizations under President Donald Trump. According to a detailed White House memorandum, the federal government has moved to exit a total of 66 international bodies, including 31 organizations connected to the United Nations and 35 additional global institutions outside the UN system.
This sweeping move represents a clear departure from the multilateral approach that has guided U.S. diplomacy since World War II. Instead, the administration has embraced a strategy centered on national sovereignty, reduced international obligations, and a preference for bilateral agreements over global governance frameworks—an extension of the long-standing “America First” doctrine.
Rationale Behind the Withdrawals
Administration officials argue that many international organizations no longer reflect their original missions and instead promote agendas that conflict with U.S. economic interests and domestic policy priorities. According to senior officials, some institutions have evolved into platforms for ideological initiatives, regulatory expansion, or climate-related mandates that the administration believes limit economic growth and undermine U.S. self-determination.
By exiting these organizations, the White House estimates that billions of dollars in taxpayer funding could be redirected toward domestic priorities. These include infrastructure investment, healthcare system stabilization, economic development programs, and workforce support initiatives aimed at strengthening the U.S. economy.
United Nations Agencies Affected
Among the most visible changes is the United States’ withdrawal from several high-profile UN-affiliated agencies. This includes UN Women, which focuses on gender equality and global development programs, and the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), an organization long at the center of political debate in the U.S. due to differing views on reproductive health policy.
Officials cited ideological disagreements as a primary reason for ending participation, emphasizing that federal funding should align with domestic policy values and national interests.
Broader Impact Beyond the UN
The scope of the withdrawals extends well beyond humanitarian agencies. The 35 non-UN organizations affected operate across a wide range of sectors, including international trade, energy policy, arms monitoring, development finance, and peacebuilding efforts.
By stepping away from these institutions, the United States is relinquishing formal roles in forums where global standards and regulations are negotiated. The administration contends that such organizations often impose regulatory expectations—sometimes referred to as “soft law”—that reduce U.S. competitiveness. The preferred alternative is a flexible foreign policy model based on direct, country-to-country negotiations.
Legal and Congressional Considerations
While the White House has outlined its intent clearly, the memo acknowledges that withdrawals will proceed “to the extent permitted by law.” Many U.S. commitments to international organizations are rooted in Senate-ratified treaties or congressional funding mandates, which limits unilateral executive authority.
Legal experts and lawmakers are expected to closely examine how these exits are implemented to ensure compliance with constitutional and legislative requirements. Despite this, the administration has signaled it will exercise executive authority as broadly as possible in pursuit of what it defines as the national interest.
Expansion of an Existing Policy Direction
This initiative builds on earlier Trump-era decisions, including the U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement and steps taken to exit the World Health Organization. In those cases, the administration argued that participation costs outweighed benefits and that institutional bias reduced fairness for the United States.