The United States has begun one of the most extensive retreats from multilateral institutions in its post-war history, following President Donald Trump’s directive on Wednesday ordering American withdrawal from 66 international organisations across the United Nations system and beyond.
The directive, formalised through a Presidential Memorandum signed on January 7, 2026, instructs all Executive Departments and Agencies to immediately cease participation in and funding for 35 non-UN organisations and 31 United Nations entities. According to a Fact Sheet released by the White House, the decision follows what the administration described as a comprehensive review of American involvement in international bodies, examining whether such engagements continue to align with national interests.
“Today, President Donald J. Trump signed a Presidential Memorandum directing the withdrawal of the United States from 66 international organisations that no longer serve American interests,” the White House stated on its website.
The administration characterised the move as necessary to end what it termed the misallocation of taxpayer resources toward institutions that “operate contrary to US national interests, security, economic prosperity, or sovereignty.” The White House said the review process, initiated earlier in the year, examined “all international intergovernmental organisations, conventions, and treaties that the United States is a member of or party to, or that the United States funds or supports.”
The sweeping nature of the withdrawals marks a dramatic escalation in Trump’s longstanding skepticism of multilateral cooperation, a position that has defined much of his approach to foreign policy since his first term in office. The decision affects a broad spectrum of international engagement, from climate and development bodies to human rights mechanisms and economic coordination platforms.
“These withdrawals will end American taxpayer funding and involvement in entities that advance globalist agendas over U.S. priorities, or that address important issues inefficiently or ineffectively such that U.S. taxpayer dollars are best allocated in other ways,” the White House Fact Sheet stated.
Framing Withdrawal as Sovereignty Reclamation
The administration positioned the directive as an assertion of national independence, arguing that many of the targeted organisations have drifted away from American values and interests. The White House accused several entities of promoting what it described as ideological programmes incompatible with US policy priorities and economic objectives.
“Many of these bodies promote radical climate policies, global governance, and ideological programs that conflict with US sovereignty and economic strength,” the Fact Sheet stated.
The administration further contended that decades of American financial contributions have yielded insufficient returns, with many organisations frequently criticising US policies or failing to deliver measurable outcomes.
“American taxpayers have spent billions on these organisations with little return, while they often criticise US policies, advance agendas contrary to our values, or waste taxpayer dollars by purporting to address important issues but not achieving any real results,” the White House said.
By severing ties with the 66 entities, the administration said it aims to redirect resources toward what it termed “America First priorities,” including domestic infrastructure, military readiness, and border security.
“He has prioritised American interests by redirecting focus and resources toward domestic priorities such as infrastructure, military readiness, and border security, and acting swiftly to protect American companies from foreign interference,” the statement said.
Acceleration of Broader Withdrawal Pattern
Wednesday’s announcement represents the latest and most comprehensive step in a series of high-profile exits from international agreements and institutions since Trump’s return to office. The pattern began immediately upon his inauguration, signalling a return to the unilateral foreign policy approach that characterised his first presidency.
“Immediately upon returning to office, President Trump initiated the withdrawal of the United States from the World Health Organization and the Paris Climate Agreement,” the White House noted.
The withdrawal from the World Health Organization, first attempted during Trump’s previous term and reversed under the Biden administration, was reinitiated as one of his first acts in office. Similarly, the exit from the Paris Climate Agreement—a landmark 2015 accord committing nearly 200 nations to collective action on climate change—was reversed for a second time, underscoring the administration’s rejection of multilateral climate frameworks.
On his first day back in the White House, Trump also moved against international tax coordination efforts. “On Day One of his Administration, President Trump signed a Presidential Memorandum to notify the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development that its Global Tax Deal has no force or effect in the United States,” the Fact Sheet said. The memorandum further ordered an investigation into whether foreign tax policies “disproportionately affect American companies.”
The Global Tax Deal, negotiated through the OECD and supported by more than 130 countries, sought to establish a minimum corporate tax rate of 15 percent globally and address profit shifting by multinational corporations. The Trump administration’s rejection of the framework reflects broader concerns within conservative economic circles about external constraints on US tax policy.
Weeks into his term, Trump escalated further by signing an Executive Order to withdraw the United States from the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC), an institution the administration has long criticised for what it views as anti-Israel bias and membership by states with poor human rights records. The same order prohibited any future funding for the UN Relief and Works Agency for the Near East (UNRWA), the body responsible for providing humanitarian assistance to Palestinian refugees across the Middle East.
“President Trump signed an Executive Order withdrawing the United States from the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) and prohibiting any future funding for the UN Relief and Works Agency for the Near East (UNRWA),” the White House said.
Historical Context of US Multilateralism
The United States emerged from the Second World War as the principal architect of the modern multilateral system. Under President Franklin D. Roosevelt and his successor Harry Truman, the US led efforts to establish the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and a host of specialised agencies designed to promote peace, stability, and development. American leadership in these institutions was seen as essential to preventing the kind of nationalist rivalry and economic fragmentation that had contributed to two world wars.
Throughout the Cold War, US participation in international organisations was viewed as a strategic asset, enabling Washington to build coalitions, project influence, and advance democratic and market-oriented values in competition with the Soviet Union. Even as debates over sovereignty and burden-sharing occasionally flared—particularly in Congress—successive administrations from both parties maintained that multilateral engagement served core American interests.
That consensus began to fray in the post-Cold War era. The 1990s saw rising conservative criticism of UN peacekeeping missions, international criminal tribunals, and environmental treaties. The George W. Bush administration adopted a more unilateral posture following the September 11, 2001 attacks, declining to join the International Criminal Court and bypassing the UN Security Council in the lead-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
However, no modern president had pursued withdrawal from international institutions with the breadth or velocity of Trump. During his first term, he withdrew from the Paris Agreement, the Iran nuclear deal, UNESCO, the UN Human Rights Council, and several arms control treaties. His administration also threatened to leave the World Trade Organization and sharply reduced US contributions to UN agencies.
President Joe Biden reversed many of those decisions upon taking office in 2021, rejoining the Paris Agreement and the World Health Organization and re-engaging with multilateral forums. His administration framed such moves as restoring American leadership and credibility on the global stage. Biden officials argued that withdrawal from international institutions did not enhance US sovereignty but instead ceded influence to rival powers, particularly China.
Trump’s return to office has effectively nullified that restoration effort. The latest directive goes further than his first-term withdrawals, targeting dozens of additional entities across the UN system and non-UN platforms alike. The scale of the disengagement suggests a fundamental rejection of the post-1945 multilateral architecture, at least in its current form.
Implications for Global Governance
While the White House has framed the withdrawals as a recalibration rather than an abandonment of international engagement, the cumulative effect is likely to be significant. The United States remains the largest financial contributor to the United Nations and many of its affiliated bodies. American withdrawal from 31 UN entities alone will create substantial funding gaps and operational challenges for those organisations.
Beyond financial implications, US absence from key forums may weaken coordination on issues ranging from public health and humanitarian crises to arms control and refugee protection. Critics of the move, including former diplomats and foreign policy analysts, have warned that vacating leadership roles within international institutions creates openings for other powers—particularly China and Russia—to shape rules and norms in ways less favourable to American interests.
At the same time, defenders of the administration’s approach argue that many of these organisations have become bureaucratic, inefficient, or dominated by states hostile to US values. They contend that continuing to fund and participate in dysfunctional institutions represents poor stewardship of taxpayer resources and legitimises bodies that undermine American sovereignty.
The administration’s position reflects a broader ideological current within American conservatism that views multilateralism with deep suspicion, viewing it as a constraint on national autonomy rather than a tool for advancing shared interests. That worldview, once confined to more isolationist factions, has gained considerable traction within the Republican Party over the past decade.
Domestic Political Calculations
Trump’s decision is also shaped by domestic political considerations. The “America First” foreign policy doctrine, centred on sovereignty, economic nationalism, and scepticism of international institutions, has proven popular with his political base. Withdrawal from organisations perceived as promoting “globalist agendas” reinforces his credentials as a disruptor willing to challenge established norms in Washington and abroad.
The administration’s emphasis on reallocating resources toward domestic priorities—infrastructure, border security, and military readiness—resonates with voters who believe that America’s international commitments have come at the expense of neglected needs at home. By framing the withdrawals as fiscally prudent and sovereignty-enhancing, the White House aims to portray Trump as a defender of the national interest against an entrenched foreign policy establishment.
However, the decision is likely to face criticism not only from Democrats and foreign governments but also from some Republicans with internationalist leanings. Defence hawks, in particular, may express concern that withdrawing from key multilateral security forums could complicate alliance management and weaken deterrence against adversaries.
The administration’s message, officials indicated, is unambiguous: international engagement must demonstrably serve the United States first—or it will not occur at all.
On the social media platform X, the White House reiterated the scope of the directive, noting that the 66 organisations included both UN and non-UN entities.
“Today, President Donald J. Trump signed a Presidential Memorandum directing the withdrawal of the United States from 66 international organisations that no longer serve American interests including: 35-non UN organisations and 31 UN entities,” the White House posted.
The full list of affected organisations has not yet been published, leaving uncertainty among diplomats, international civil servants, and policy analysts about which specific bodies will lose American participation and funding. The administration is expected to provide further details in the coming days as withdrawal procedures begin across multiple federal agencies.
