White House Announces Withdrawal From 66 International Organizations To Prioritize American Sovereignty
The White House has released a Fact Sheet detailing a Presidential Memorandum signed by President Donald J. Trump, directing the immediate withdrawal of the United States from 66 international organizations. The administration states that these entities no longer serve American interests and often operate in opposition to national security, economic prosperity, and sovereignty. The directive targets 35 non-United Nations organizations and 31 UN entities, marking a significant shift in U.S. foreign policy and international engagement.
According to the official release, the decision follows a comprehensive review of all international intergovernmental organizations, conventions, and treaties to which the United States is a party or contributor. The administration argues that American taxpayers have funded these bodies with “little return,” claiming they promote “radical climate policies, global governance, and ideological programs” that conflict with U.S. values. The memorandum orders all Executive Departments and Agencies to cease participation and funding, aiming to redirect resources toward domestic priorities and bilateral engagements that strictly adhere to an “America First” doctrine.
Background and Context
This move represents an escalation of the administration’s skepticism toward multilateralism, a hallmark of President Trump’s previous term and current agenda. The “Golden Age of American Greatness” platform, as described on the White House website, emphasizes national sovereignty and bilateral deals over global consensus. The administration has previously criticized international bodies for being inefficient, bureaucratically bloated, and biased against U.S. interests. This mass withdrawal is described by officials as a necessary step to dismantle the “globalist agenda” and restore independence in decision-making. The list of specific organizations includes various specialized agencies, though the administration has emphasized that the withdrawals are targeted at those deemed most ineffective or hostile.
Objections and Criticism
The announcement has drawn sharp criticism from diplomatic experts, opposition leaders, and international allies who argue that such a sweeping withdrawal will isolate the United States and diminish its global influence. Critics contend that vacating these seats creates a power vacuum that rivals, such as China and Russia, are likely to fill, thereby reshaping global norms in their favor. Opponents of the move characterize it as a strategic error that weakens the post-World War II international order and undermines collective efforts to address transnational challenges like pandemics, climate change, and nuclear proliferation. Legal scholars and policy analysts have also raised concerns about the long-term impact on U.S. soft power and the potential difficulty of re-entering these organizations in the future should political winds shift.
Neutral Analysis
The directive highlights a fundamental divergence in foreign policy philosophy. The administration views international organizations as constraints on national power and a drain on financial resources, prioritizing direct control and transactional diplomacy. Conversely, proponents of these institutions view them as essential force multipliers that stabilize the global system and advance U.S. interests through cooperation. The immediate cessation of funding and participation is expected to trigger significant administrative and diplomatic adjustments worldwide, as the affected organizations grapple with the loss of their largest donor and political backer. The full list of the 66 organizations and the specific timeline for the completion of the withdrawal process are outlined in the attached Fact Sheet.
whitehouse.gov
