U.S. Withdraws from 66 International Organizations, Signaling More Cuts Ahead
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a bold move reshaping America’s role on the global stage, the Trump administration announced its withdrawal from 66 international organizations, including 31 entities within the United Nations system. This sweeping decision follows President Donald Trump’s February 2025 executive order mandating a comprehensive review of U.S. support for all international organizations. Officials indicate that more cuts could be forthcoming, with additional U.N. agencies potentially targeted next.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio framed the withdrawal as a rejection of what he described as “an outdated model of multilateralism,” one that he said unfairly positions the American taxpayer as the primary financier of a sprawling global governance architecture. Rubio emphasized that the organizations affected by the recent cuts are “by no means the only offenders,” signaling that the State Department continues to scrutinize other international bodies for potential disengagement.
The administration’s decision reflects a broader skepticism toward multilateral institutions that has characterized U.S. foreign policy under Trump. Critics argue that the move risks isolating the United States from critical global forums, while supporters claim it restores fiscal responsibility and prioritizes American interests.
The withdrawal encompasses a diverse array of organizations, ranging from specialized U.N. agencies to other international groups. The U.S. had long been a major contributor to these bodies, providing funding and diplomatic engagement that helped shape global policies on health, development, and security. The departure from these organizations raises questions about the future of U.S. influence in international affairs.
Experts note that the Trump administration’s approach could have far-reaching consequences. The U.S. Department of State continues to evaluate the cost-benefit balance of participation in international organizations, weighing sovereignty concerns against the benefits of cooperation. Some analysts warn that further withdrawals could erode longstanding alliances and diminish America’s ability to address transnational challenges.
Rubio’s remarks also highlighted concerns about accountability and efficiency within these organizations, issues that have fueled calls for reform. The administration has argued that many groups have failed to justify continued U.S. funding or have pursued agendas misaligned with American priorities.
While the administration insists it is not turning its back on global engagement, the pattern of exits suggests a recalibration of U.S. commitments. The United Nations and its affiliated agencies have been central to international diplomacy for decades, and U.S. withdrawal from multiple U.N. bodies marks a significant shift.
Observers will be closely watching whether other international organizations face similar treatment. The U.S. Agency for International Development and other government entities involved in global cooperation may see their roles evolve as the administration pursues a more transactional approach to international relations.
As the world grapples with complex issues such as climate change, global health crises, and geopolitical conflicts, the U.S. stance on multilateralism will remain a key factor in shaping international responses. The Trump administration’s recent moves underscore a willingness to challenge established norms and prioritize national sovereignty over traditional alliances.
For now, the full implications of the U.S. withdrawal from these 66 organizations remain to be seen. The international community is likely to respond with a mix of concern and recalibration, as global governance structures adjust to a diminished American presence. The State Department’s ongoing reviews suggest that this is not the final chapter in America’s evolving relationship with multilateral institutions.
Leave a Reply